Juries

(from BBC news website)
It has been reported that a jury was directed to acquit a young man accused of manslaughter after one of the jurors decided it was appropriate for him to carry out his own investigation and share the results of that with his fellow jurors – see here.

The Independent this morning had an editorial comment commending the actions of this juror and condemning the ‘closed shop’ of lawyers in criminal cases – see here. My view is that this is one of the most spectacularly ill informed and ill thought pieces of journalistic commentary that I have read in recent years.

Juries are presented with the evidence and asked to decide the evidence. The law is the preserve of the Judge. Within the exclusive preserve of the Judge is the decision as to what evidence is to be presented to the jury. Great care is taken to ensure (where possible) that the evidence chosen is relevant to the issues in the case and that it has value in terms that its assistance exceeds its prejudicial effect.

One of the reasons for this is because the accused needs to understand what evidence has been used to convict him – in other words to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial. If jurors are to carry out their own inexpert ‘investigations’ independently of the court process, it would be possible for the accused not merely to have additional evidence thrown at him at trial, but that he may not even be aware of what the evidence is at all and so not have a chance to examine it.