http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6195914.stm IMHO, those last two pars show why there should now be a public inquiry into 7/7.
Well this is a surprise isn't it. These lot were always going down if they were subject to a jury trial, thanks to the wonderful media influenced public we have (and no, I'm not for a minute suggesting that that makes them innocent).
Says who? You? Just because two were cleared? There could have been an astounding lack of eveidence against those two dirtbags for all you know. Besides, as you can tell, I'm not a fan of jury trials in the 21st Century.
But according to you, the media had already convicted all seven. No, the jurors spent a fair amount of time examining the evidence. And I'm coming round more to the view that we shouldn't treat jurors as such delicate flowers, just go with the American system of asking them if the coverage has made them biased. It works over there.
To waste some money? Excellent idea They got in a new chief, and I'm sure they can "learn from the lesson" so it doesn't happen again (and it hasn't up to now) without a needless inquiry. Unless, of course, it's all a big conspiracy
I believe that for a public trial in the crown court and the higher courts, you can obtain trial transcipts, but have to order and pay for them. Some cases are reported but those are rarely crown court cases and are usually appeal cases. The magistrates courts don't have transcripts at all. A long hand note, which isn't verbatim is usually kept, but is not considered a public document.
I did think the excuse for not having one - 'We're a little busy here' - was a touch lame. So we don't get any form of open inquiry during the ongoing amorphous war on terror?
I read an argument on modifying the current jury system... still 12 people, but kept in isolation from each other, and it still takes unanimity to convict. The idea being that if the evidence for conviction is so strong, it shouldn't matter if there's any herd mentality or follow-the-leader going on, and each juror should be able to come to the same conclusion themselves. An interesting side-effect of the current system, where jurors are allowed to confer, is that if you're guilty, you're better off with a jury, and if you're innocent, you're better off trying to convince a single judge of the fact; the judge is more educated, and unlikely to be biased by media reports. Whereas with a jury, you only need to get one of them to doubt the evidence, and if there's a lot of complicated evidence, it's more likely to go over the heads of some of the jury members, who are, again, most likely less educated than the judge. It was an interesting read... I'll see if I can find it again.
