I’ve given up trying to work out the golden thread, or any thread for that matter, running through Polly Toynbee comments in the Guardian.
Today inside her Trojan horse column , she’s weeping at the government’s failure to get through “its no juries in complex fraud trials business.”
The poor dear gets herself most awfully confused.
She whitters on about the difficulty juries have in staying the course in a long fraud trial. How jurors have difficulty in remembering the evidence they are presented with. Nonsense. Most of the evidence in these cases is on paper. No need to remember anything. And any judge likely to be in charge will sum up the evidence given orally and link it to the documents the jurors have.Things will go wrong. But they go wrong in all trials.
But what really gets m/s Toynbee’s hackles up is that some of these multi billion pound fraudsters are getting off with their thievery, while some poor sod goes down the stairs for nicking a box of pens from work. It would be too much to expect facts and figures, and her readers are not disappointed. There’s NO evidence to support this nonsense. Why? There’s no research into what goes on in the jury room. It’s illegal to ask a juror what thought processes led to the decision.
Clearly, the Maxwell case still rankles with her but it’s a pisspoor example Polly. This was as easier case for a jury to decide as one of shoplifting from Woolies. The juror’s simple decision was to put a cross in the box “were the Maxwell lads dishonest”? And the decision was clear, and from what I’ve seen of the evidence, a no –brainer.
Then off she goes to the US.
Blimey, she weeps, they don’t ‘arf get convictions over there. But hey, Polly ole girl do they have juries? Of course they do. And the idea of abolishing them simply does not arise.
I know Blair seems to have forgotten his law but Polly then gets her knickers in a twist, poor dear, about lenient sentences and juries. I cannot think of an offence in this arena that does not allow a judge to dole out to a convicted fraudster wearing his white collar, a large spoonful of porridge. Sentencing has nothing to do with a jury.
A couple of years ago I saw Vera Baird M.P. Q.C, in
Newcastle give a talk to local lawyers. One of the issues she raised was the abolition of jury trials. She
believed then that their abolition in fraud cases would be a precursor to their general
abolition; or at least allowing the court, not the defendant, to decide whether
the case should be tried in front of a jury. His right to elect would disappear. She took the view then that once the
serious fraud cases were tried without a jury, the principle of jury trial
would have taken such a battering it would be easy to move on to that next
stage. At a stroke, or perhaps three strikes, the government would save money
and increase conviction rates, impossible plums for any government not to pull
out of the judicial pie. Vera was right then.
It must gladden the hearts of all on Planet Blair to read this nonsense from m/s Toynbee.
Why? There’s no research into what goes on in the jury room. It’s illegal to ask a juror what thought processes led to the decision.
True enough, although there is a considerable body of research on jury processes from simulations using mock trials which, despite the obvious limitations of simulated studies, does have some relevance.
In particular studies which have concentrated on jury perceptions of defendents have shown that juries tend to be more lenient when faced with a professional in the dock if the charge is unrelated to the professional status or occupation but harder on them if the charge realted to their professional activities.
It's all common sense really - there's nothing the police hate more than a bent copper, that lawyers hate more than a corrupt lawyer and doctors hate more than incompetent doctor. We are all naturally inclined to be harder on those we perceive to have 'let the side down' when they should know better.
I've been looking at some of this research only last week in the context of the Swansea rape case and out of basic interest as a psychologist by training and all the research I've seen tends to show that juries are reliably rational actors in the trial process particularly in assessing the value of evidence where physical evidence is invariably given most weight, followed by that staple of the detective novel, means, motive and opportunity, after which perceptions about the defendant and witnesses come into play.
All things being equal, in a complex fraud case where the balance of evidence is around 50-50 one would, from the research, expect a jury to convict more often than acquit as the defendants in such cases will generally have a degree of professional status which will count against them in such offences.
I'd take the view that juries present few real problems in complex fraud cases, if they do go under at trial its almost always due to problems with evidence.
Posted by: Unity | 29 November 2005 at 05:02 PM
Unity,
I seem to recall some jury evidence from mock trials. If you're going to chuck out juries even in SF cases, it may be better to allow some real research.
On the substative point, I never came across a fraud case, some serious, that a jury could not understand. Most jurors can sniff out dishonesty a mile way, and that's the crux of all of these cases.
It was always down to the prosecutor and judge. But this is a problem in other, non complex-fraud, cases, that do not present the difficulties Polly Parrot wrote about.
I don't think anyone has suggested abolishing juries for Health and Safety cases. They are just as complex as serious fraud, last just as long and are as taxing on the jurors.
Cheers
t
Posted by: Tony | 29 November 2005 at 05:48 PM
Surely this can't be the the same Vera Baird MP,QC who followed T. Blair through the Lobby during the debate on the Terrorism Bill supporting 90 day detention without trial ....or am I mishtaken?
Posted by: David | 30 November 2005 at 01:59 PM
David,
The very same.
Though I'm not sure I see the link between non-jury trials and the Terrorism Bill.
It's not insignificant that Vera was appointed PPS to Charles Clarke at the beginning of November. She's now on the payroll.
t
Posted by: Tony | 30 November 2005 at 02:27 PM