The family shouted at the jury : “Were you not listening?”

[jarlrmai]

I can't believe than any cyclist would try and ride on that tiny tiny overgrown pavement...

 

[Ern1e]

Having had the great fortune to have done jury service I can say that it's not justice that wins it's quite simply the best bloody act wins !!! The guys in wigs on the floor make every atempt to stop yu hearing things they don't want you to. Once you get sent out to beliberate your case it then gets down to who belives what who ever said and seems to be the most believable, I feel so sorry for this young mans family etc and one can only hope that karma takes it's coarse.

 

[slowmotion]

@Pale Rider made a good point about the length of the jury's deliberations. I wouldn't be too harsh on them. They clearly thought long and hard about the case. Maybe they got it wrong. At least they tried.

 

[glenn forger]

Not one member of the jury was screened for driving convictions, including using a mobile. They weren't even shown that road.

 

[glenn forger]

We don't do that

Two potential members were dismissed for being local, apparently, two more were excused for knowing the accused.

 

[Arrowfoot]

I understand from folks that have kept up with case from the start that they had been campaign and focus by the family that might have backfired. I mentioned earlier that 2 relatives of the victim was removed from the jury and eventually the judge had rule out jury members residing within 2 miles from the town. The fact that a family member berated the jury after the verdict is quite interesting.

Not sure if all this added to the outcome but I found it strange that despite some overwhelming evidence, the driver was acquitted.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

That's in the evidence. Sinden didn't even get fined for using a mobile while driving, which he admitted.

Was he indicted for that? Can only be punished if found or pleading guilty for the charges put before the court.

 

[slowmotion]

Quite a lot of people have driving convictions. I doesn't automatically make us sinister uncaring petrolhead maniacs. You can't expect the jury to comprise solely of nuns.

 

[oldstrath]

Quite a lot of people have driving convictions. I doesn't automatically make us sinister uncaring petrolhead maniacs. You can't expect the jury to comprise solely of nuns.

No, but just as we (I hope ) wouldn't allow people with burglary convictions to try someone accused of burglary, surely someone accused of a motoring offence should be tried solely by people with no history of motoring offences. We do exist, you know.

 

[ufkacbln]

Two potential members were dismissed for being local, apparently, two more were excused for knowing the accused.

There is a difference between being screened and declaring a "conflict of interest"

 

[shouldbeinbed]

No, but just as we (I hope ) wouldn't allow people with burglary convictions to try someone accused of burglary, surely someone accused of a motoring offence should be tried solely by people with no history of motoring offences. We do exist, you know.

Nobody is saying we don't exist, but a jury is a cross section of society not a star chamber of the legally and morally unimpeachable.

Doing the devils advocate thing: If you had people purposefully vetted against such (as they are seen in law) minor convictions as driving offences then maybe the defence would be more likely to raise objections to a jury that has insufficient experience on which to impartially try the case.

Has there been anything published that details the *criminal* history of this jury to merit the line of thinking that there are sufficient motoring felons amongst them to exert that mentality on deliberations and sway the decision?

 

[slowmotion]

No, but just as we (I hope ) wouldn't allow people with burglary convictions to try someone accused of burglary, surely someone accused of a motoring offence should be tried solely by people with no history of motoring offences. We do exist, you know.

I think that the general idea of a jury is that you are judged by your "fellow man". I have one speeding conviction in thirty years. I don't think that should disqualify me for a serving as a juror involving motoring. Besides, it's impractical...there's a limited supply of nuns.

EDIT: cross post with my learned colleague above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[glenn forger]

Fewer than two per cent of the population are regular cyclists. The AA survey found that more than eighty per cent of drivers admit speeding and contemporaneously claim to be good drivers, so bad driving is ingrained, criminal driving is normalised. So, if a jury are being asked to decide whether playing with a mobile phone while driving is dangerous, or even careless, then to my mind it would without question be a conflict of interest if the same person had a criminal Record for the very same crime.

 

[ufkacbln]

Excellent another TMN for me, and I have been light on them of late.

Nice try..... however the "Conflict of Interest" was a new aspect and invalidates your claim!

 

[oldstrath]

I think that the general idea of a jury is that you are judged by your "fellow man". I have one speeding conviction in thirty years. I don't think that should disqualify me for a serving as a juror involving motoring. Besides, it's impractical...there's a limited supply of nuns.

EDIT: cross post with my learned colleague above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm not a nun (nor even the more physically achievable monk), but if you are really correct that a jury of people without a history of motoring convictions is 'impractical ', that is sad. What I think likelier is that most of us have internalised the idea that bad driving, even though it has more potential to kill than many other criminal acts, is not 'really' criminal. Which is even sadder.