The directions of this over-mighty judge were egregious and a disgrace to the legal process. The jury gave the ‘wrong answer’ as far as the establishment were concerned. To have appealed the decision might have led to another legal quagmire. Counsel acted in the best traditions of the independent bar, fearless of the wishes of the establishment
Nothing in your article explaining the "why" Rajiv Menon was facing contempt of court proceedings but that was something I had wanted to comment on. Seems he was in a bit of bother because Judge Johnson had directed the jury to disregards the concept of "jury equity" but he seems to think Menon went against the judges directions in his addressing the jury and this was why the jury acquitted.
I wanted to ask the question how can a judge just give a direction to a jury to ignore something if said "something" is an established legal concept?
If jury equity is something a jury can use then they should be able to use it.
There is an obvious question here, seeing as the reason for a jury verdict is sacroscent, how did the judge conclude the jury had actually decided the verdict using their conscience rather than the facts of the case?
If juries are deliberating on uncorroborated he-said she-said type cases where the only "evidence" is witness testimony (or hearsay - which I see is being used more in certain offences but any legal textbook will tell you is very rarely admissable as evidence in a trial) alleging to events 10/20/30/40/50+ years ago then how is that any different, that is surely a jury voting with their conscience rather than cold hard look at the facts of the case or the "evidence"
The problem here IMO is the jury gave the WRONG verdict in the eyes of the establishment and the establishment did not like it. Yet the establishment is more than happy in other instances to allow people thrown into jail (fasttracked in some cases - even though we are told delays in the so-called "justice" system are the worst they have ever been, funny how those wheels of justice can turn a bit faster depending on who the system is being weaponised against today)
Power to the jury is all I can say - the last bastion against an ever increasingly weaponised / politicised "justice" system which is obviously why Labour want to do away with jury trials
Thankyou Joshua
The directions of this over-mighty judge were egregious and a disgrace to the legal process. The jury gave the ‘wrong answer’ as far as the establishment were concerned. To have appealed the decision might have led to another legal quagmire. Counsel acted in the best traditions of the independent bar, fearless of the wishes of the establishment
Nothing in your article explaining the "why" Rajiv Menon was facing contempt of court proceedings but that was something I had wanted to comment on. Seems he was in a bit of bother because Judge Johnson had directed the jury to disregards the concept of "jury equity" but he seems to think Menon went against the judges directions in his addressing the jury and this was why the jury acquitted.
I wanted to ask the question how can a judge just give a direction to a jury to ignore something if said "something" is an established legal concept?
If jury equity is something a jury can use then they should be able to use it.
There is an obvious question here, seeing as the reason for a jury verdict is sacroscent, how did the judge conclude the jury had actually decided the verdict using their conscience rather than the facts of the case?
If juries are deliberating on uncorroborated he-said she-said type cases where the only "evidence" is witness testimony (or hearsay - which I see is being used more in certain offences but any legal textbook will tell you is very rarely admissable as evidence in a trial) alleging to events 10/20/30/40/50+ years ago then how is that any different, that is surely a jury voting with their conscience rather than cold hard look at the facts of the case or the "evidence"
The problem here IMO is the jury gave the WRONG verdict in the eyes of the establishment and the establishment did not like it. Yet the establishment is more than happy in other instances to allow people thrown into jail (fasttracked in some cases - even though we are told delays in the so-called "justice" system are the worst they have ever been, funny how those wheels of justice can turn a bit faster depending on who the system is being weaponised against today)
Power to the jury is all I can say - the last bastion against an ever increasingly weaponised / politicised "justice" system which is obviously why Labour want to do away with jury trials
I explained the background to the case in last week's piece, to which I linked in the opening paragraph.