I cannot stress enough about your right to silence. Do not even acknowledge your name.
One of Craig’s subscriber only posts
This is what Craig linked to if you cannot see the tweet
1 Like
Hi folks, I’ve been trying to find when the erosion of jury “equity decisions” (the right of jurors to vote based on their conscience) first started - it seems to be based on this amendment to the Juries Act 1974 by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 :
"20COffence: jurors engaging in other prohibited conduct
(1)It is an offence for a member of a jury that tries an issue in a case before a court intentionally to engage in prohibited conduct during the trial period, subject to the exceptions in subsections (4) and (5).
(2)“Prohibited conduct” means conduct from which it may reasonably be concluded that the person intends to try the issue otherwise than on the basis of the evidence presented in the proceedings on the issue.
(3)An offence under this section is committed whether or not the person knows that the conduct is prohibited conduct.
(4)It is not an offence under this section for a member of the jury to research the case (as defined in section 20A(2) to (4)).
(5)It is not an offence under this section for a member of the jury to disclose information to another member of the jury.
(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).
(7)Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.
(8)In this section, “the trial period” has the same meaning as in section 20A.]
Textual Amendments
F1S. 20C inserted (13.4.2015) by Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (c. 2), ss. 73, 95(1); S.I. 2015/778, art. 3, Sch. 1 para. 58 (with Sch. 2 para. 3(a))"
I have emboldened 3 areas above which I find totally conflict and wonder whether this has been the subject of review by the courts.
How can a juror intend to conduct himself in a way that is regarded as prohibited conduct if he does not know what is and what is not prohibited conduct given that “prohibited conduct” is only determined by ex post facto objective analysis by a “reasonable person”. If a juror looks at the totality of “the evidence presented” and concludes that it only describes part of the events or only one side of the events is he not saying I don’t believe the evidence presented is sufficient to condemn or absolve the accused? Surely a reasonable conclusion that some pertinent evidence is missing is judging the evidence base and decisions based on this should not be in breach of sub-section 20C(2).
I searched Hansard for a Parliamentary discussion on the 2015 amendments and I could find nothing at all - and yet the courts seek to interpret them as being the will of Parliament! Some would say Parliament needs to express itself at least clearly with reasons when seeking to abolish the right of jurors to vote by their conscience!
Did I mention the Rule of Claw 
cheers
1 Like