The Adam Johnson Trial

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
- Doing The Lambert Walk said:
I was asked once. I swerved it as it over-lapped with my exams.

I've always found the prospect of being on a jury interesting, but it was pretty awful timing.
Click to expand...
At one time you had to have a very good reason to miss jury service (which you had), but now people avoid it on very tenuous grounds. This is apparently altering the range of people available...as they tend to be people who are available (ie. not working) and have a real desire to serve on a jury. Having said that most juries seem to arrive at the right result....showing you can probably trust the native common sense of the British people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarchwoodSaint
fran-MLs little camera said:
At one time you had to have a very good reason to miss jury service (which you had), but now people avoid it on very tenuous grounds. This is apparently altering the range of people available...as they tend to be people who are available (ie. not working) and have a real desire to serve on a jury. Having said that most juries seem to arrive at the right result....showing you can probably trust the native common sense of the British people.
Click to expand...

I missed mine as the previous trial overran. Shame. Would have been interesting.
 
Whiteley Saint said:
I think he's a lying scumbag but I really hope they do what they are supposed to do and go by what is proven beyond doubt. Unfortunately (or fortunately) you can't convict someone just because you think they might have done it.
Click to expand...
I get that. It's just I think he has done far more then he says he had. Also makes me think has he done it before? And paid money to hush it up.
 
The tough bit is people accepting a not guilty verdict, it seems. But the principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt is an essential plank of our system (even if it has been discredited) and leads to the conclusion that it is better for a hundred guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted. If this guy is found not guilty he is still a slime-ball, but a slime-ball innocent of the more serious charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whiteley Saint
I would find it very difficult not to find him guilty, based on the fact that he has already pled/pleaded (?) guilty to grooming and one count of sexual activity, with her.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
At one time you had to have a very good reason to miss jury service (which you had), but now people avoid it on very tenuous grounds. This is apparently altering the range of people available...as they tend to be people who are available (ie. not working) and have a real desire to serve on a jury. Having said that most juries seem to arrive at the right result....showing you can probably trust the native common sense of the British people.
Click to expand...
I would like to be on a jury at some point. Assuming the crime isn't something really bad.
 
I had to report on a court case not so long back. It was about historic child sex offences.

An interesting introduction to court to say the least!
 
I was asked at a (relatively) young age but had to decline as it coincided with my first week in University. They asked again shortly after which coincided with my main field trip abroad (100% module in same year). Was gutted as I was really keen to do it. 20 years on and haven't been asked since, doubt I ever will be asked again. Annoying - although being self employed now I don't think I could do it anyway.....
 
That's because they have a much bigger pool of potential people to choose from - before the 70's ish you had to either own a home or rent a house in your own name to be eligible for Jury Service - plus didn't they bring it down from 21 to 18?
 
Saint Alban said:
That's because they have a much bigger pool of potential people to choose from - before the 70's ish you had to either own a home or rent a house in your own name to be eligible for Jury Service - plus didn't they bring it down from 21 to 18?
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah. Smart arse based on facts logical answer. I prefer a conspiracy theory answer, but fair enough.
 
I had to go to court for jury duty early in my second year at university (c. 16 years ago). At that time, they sent out a letter saying that if the case was expected to take more than 2 weeks they would let you know further in plenty of time. So, I turned up on the day, and only then they then announced it was a child sex case (two sisters aged 8 & 9 at the time of the multiple alleged crimes - about 16 different counts if I remember right) and that the case was likely to run for 8-12 weeks. Anyway, all I remember is two older ladies (they were c. 50, I was 18-19) in front of me deciding the defendant was guilty upon seeing him, and my relief that my name/number was not on that occasion pulled out of the bowl to serve. Obviously, if it had, i'd have had to have said something. Never did bother following the case after that. There's some things, if only for the sake of believing in fellow man, you just don't want to know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ----HistoryRepeating----
I was first called for jury service, and got out of it, in my twenties, at a time when my wife was carrying our first child.
We were managing a newsagents, at the time, with me doing all the early shifts, getting up around 04.30 everyday.
I wrote to the court explaining that I would still have to do the early shifts, before coming to the courts, and would not be able to guarantee staying awake, to hear the evidence, as I needed an early afternoon nap, when my wife ran the shop, to get through my day.
I was called up a second time, about 15 years ago, and sat on a two day trial for assault, threatening behaviour and theft of a jacket.
A total arse tried to railroad the jury into a "not guilty" verdict, without reviewing the evidence, but common sense prevailed.
After the guilty verdict, the judge read out the defendant's previous record, which was as long as my arm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: latviandream and - Doing The Lambert Walk
Never been called, neither of my parents have, or either of my brothers...or any of my adult children. Come to that, my wife, her parents and three brothers have never been called either. Must all be on a list of wrong'uns I reckon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back