Monday, October 24, 2011

MSP says Justice system must be ‘open & representative’ as QC Paul McBride calls for reform of jury selection, tests & declarations for jurors

Top QC Paul McBride calls for jurors to sit tests to establish their suitability to be on a jury. REFORM of the current system of juror selection is a must if their verdicts are to be respected, says top Scots QC Paul McBride who believes jurors should be made to sit tests to establish their suitability for sitting on juries in Scotland’s courts. Mr McBride’s remarks come after the puzzling verdict in the Neil Lennon assault case, where a Hearts fan was acquitted of a sectarian assault after the jury removed the reference to making a sectarian remark from the charge relating to breach of the peace, and returned a not proven verdict for ‘aggravated by religious prejudice charge’.

Currently, the only requirements for people to serve on a jury in a Scottish Court are that they be over 18, be registered to vote and have lived in the UK for at least five years. However, the perception these requirements are somewhat lacking has been considered & debated for some time by leading law figures & observers of the way the courts operate, although many of those attending courts have observed over the years there are significant problems throughout the entire courts system from the judiciary down, not just with how juries are selected.

Scottish Justice in the dock as QC calls for juries to be reformed : Paul McBride QC on Neil Lennon Celtic v Hearts assault verdict (click image to watch video)


Mr McBride, speaking to the Herald newspaper, said he would like to see jurors be required to disclose their employment and whether they have been a victim of crime. The Herald reported : “This is an area that lawyers have been discussing for some time. Judges and lawyers undergo a high standard of training. The only area where there is no scrutiny at all on the people who actually make the decision, which is baffling. “You don’t have to be able to read or write or speak English. “We have got 15 people deciding whether a person is guilty and we know nothing about them.”

Mr McBride continued : “In Scotland, unlike any other country on the planet, a person can be convicted by one vote. Following the Lennon verdict a lot of people, and newspapers were asking about the selection process for juries. In every other country there is some kind of jury selection process to determine whether they have got the basic skills and whether they have committed a crime. A lot of trials are conducted by police statements. If a member of the jury can’t read or speak English that’s a bit of a disadvantage.”

It is noteworthy these calls for jury reform have only re-entered the arena of public debate after a case involving sectarian charges pursued by the Crown Office against a Football fan were found not proven by a jury, while coincidentally, the Scottish Government are pursing legislation in the form of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill which it is claimed, will give the Police more powers to deal with sectarian offences and threatening behaviour. Scottish Law  Reporter covers the issue in more detail HERE.

However, legal observers note there are arguably many more problems in the justice system relating to sectarianism than solely with jurors who might not manage a verdict which happens to be favourable to current legislative plans. Earlier this year, Scottish Law Reporter featured coverage on a report which the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee had debated whether to publish or keep secret, academics had established there was evidence to suggest the courts system itself was sectarian due to studies on sentencing statistics involving religious minorities. The report, by Dr Susan Wiltshire of the University of Glasgow can be read online or downloaded here : OFFENDER DEMOGRAPHICS AND SENTENCING PATTERNS IN SCOTLAND AND THE UK and readers can draw their own conclusions.

John lamontJohn Lamont MSP, Scottish Conservative. Asked for comment on Mr McBride’s calls for jury reform, John Lamont MSP, the Scottish Conservative's Justice spokesman said : "Jurors have a vital place within our justice system and it is important that we take the greatest care in choosing them. The idea of having more detailed information to help select juries is worthy of further consideration."

Mr Lamont continued : "However, we must not undermine the principle behind trials by jury. We need to ensure that the privacy and impartiality of juries is maintained as they must always continue to represent all sectors of society if they are to provide a balanced judgement. The right to jury trial ensures that one class of people don't sit in judgment over another. The public must have confidence in an open and representative justice system."

15 comments:

  1. I'm not too happy about changing juries just because the verdicts dont comply with the SNP's ludicrous laws on sectarian songs

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why not have a selection process,there are plenty other countries who do.The Neil Lennon assault case was a farce,almost as if they didn't want a guilty verdict from the outset.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh God!
    Leave the juries as they are otherwise it'll end up as one big fiddle like everything else in the justice system!

    ReplyDelete
  4. More juries and less bent judges please24 October 2011 at 19:52

    This is all very well however Mr McBride should be campaigning for more juries in civil actions not just jury reform.
    I'm sure if you were to do a survey of countries who use juries in civil actions Scotland will turn up near the bottom of the league and all because those vested interests want to keep the system where judges award puny damages while in case comparisons in say the United States the same claims see awards of millions of dollars.

    In fact the differences are so severe between a jury in a civil claim and a judge making the final award its enough to make you think there's something in it for the judge!

    ReplyDelete
  5. One QC calling for change does not constitute a need for reform.There are over 400 other advocates and supposedly 10,000 lawyers in Scotland (what a horrible thought) so where are all the calls for jury reform?
    If anyone is able to answer this question and give a number of supporters of tests for jurors etc I'd also like to know what the motives of these people calling for jury reform are and whether they have been involved in or connected to any high profile cases where the jury's verdict ran against what they thought best.
    Tough question to answer..

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes lets choose the jury to give us the verdict we want.
    My goodness Salmond & MacAskill will have a field day with chosing jurors on the basis of their "scottishness" and party membership!

    What a totally barmy idea!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think John Lamont makes some fair points particularly when he said "The right to jury trial ensures that one class of people don't sit in judgment over another. The public must have confidence in an open and representative justice system."

    However its also fair to say we do NOT currently have an open or representative justice system in Scotland and this is why much of it as you have said yourself many times Peter,needs reforming.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "If a member of the jury can’t read or speak English that’s a bit of a disadvantage"

    Also a bit of a disadvantage if they cant see through some of the lawyers waffling away on behalf of their clients..

    ReplyDelete
  9. What I think of this idea I cant write here because you wont publish my comment.

    Suffice to say any meddling with the jury system is not on especially when we have politicians meddling in cases because they want verdicts to suit their laws which are not laws just really a popularity exercise for Salmond etc

    ReplyDelete
  10. It beggars belief any jury could be so stubbornly blind to an unprovoked assault recorded and broadcast on national television..but then this is Scotland, and as the jury's verdict demonstrates anti-catholic bigotry is widespread.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No-one can have any confidence in Scottish 'justice' after this contemptible verdict.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So Scotland's grubby little Secterian 'secret' is out - and thanks to the internet will not be forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous said...

    It beggars belief any jury could be so stubbornly blind to an unprovoked assault recorded and broadcast on national television..but then this is Scotland, and as the jury's verdict demonstrates anti-catholic bigotry is widespread.

    24 October 2011 23:03

    Totally agree.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You are correct of course Peter - the whole justice system needs reforming not just the juries!

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Neil Lennon assault case shows us just how twisted the justice system is when a jury can sit in a court hear everything that was said even admitted to and come to a not proven/not guilty verdict.
    Jury selection YES Juror literacy tests and disclosure YES

    ReplyDelete

Comments should encourage & promote an acceptable & respectful level of public debate on law & legal issues, the judiciary, courts & justice system.

All comments are subject to moderation. Anonymous comments are enabled.
Abusive or unacceptable comments will not be published.
Comments & links to material may not always be published but will be noted and investigated.

Sourced information, news leaks, or cases with verifiable documentation for investigation should be emailed to blog journalists.