As a juror, do you judge the case on the facts or by your conscience? (Venue A)

Details

THE VENUE: Caffè Nero

The weather forecast for Sunday looks promising so we expect to meet outside by the river. But things may change. So, the default is to meet indoors but please look out for updates before you leave home.

When we meet inside, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.

We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: As a juror, do you judge the case on the facts or by your conscience?

Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity, or a perverse verdict, is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law.

The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favour of the defendant.

Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.

Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.
In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offence.

"The right of a jury to decide a case according to conscience, has always been something of a dark secret in English criminal justice; tolerated but ideally not mentioned in public. Juries have the power to return what is condescendingly called a “perverse verdict” but are never told this by judges in case it encourages them to do so." (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/27/trudi-warner-english-courts-juries)

Some questions:

Should juries be made more aware of this option, or might this encourage them to apply it too frequently ? Is it right that they can be reminded by other means, perhaps by a protestor outside the court ?

As a juror, could you imagine yourself acquitting a defendant who you believe has broken the law, as a matter of personal conscience ?

Is the jury system itself now less relevant to criminal justice, given the complexity of the law and some cases that come to court ?

Or are juries still “bulwarks of liberty” ?

Do you accept the research evidence that shows that decision-making by groups of ordinary people, particularly diverse groups of people, is more accurate, more responsible and more successful at reaching the truth of any matter than that by single individuals ?