Juries

There seems to be some concern in the popular press about a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights which quashed the convictions of two men found guilty in a UK court of peddling Heroin.
The ECHR ruling was based on the admitted fact that one of the jurors was a serving police officer who had worked with, and known for ten years, a police officer witness.
I can’t say I’m at all surprised or shocked at the ruling, which seems to me to be absolutely correct. How could any fair-minded person be sure that the juror was completely impartial? He may well have been, and I don’t intend to impugn the juror in any way, but justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. It’s not whether his presence on this particular jury was fair, it’s whether it appeared to be fair, the ECHR thought it didn’t, and I for one agree.
In my particular court if, during any case, it becomes apparent that anyone before the Court is known to anyone on the bench, that Magistrate immediately excuses him or her self. It’s the only way the proceedings can be seen to be open, transparent and fair.

While on the subject of juries, I read that on the fifth day of a trial a 19 year old juror, Matthew Banks, lied about being ill so he could go see a West End musical with his mother.
The judge promptly jailed him for 14 days for contempt and his mother, Debbie Ennis, who was a party to the deception, is reported as being outraged at the sentence – but why?
She must have known full well that her son’s actions were dishonest and could very well have resulted in the trial collapsing at huge cost to the public purse, but it would seem she put her own selfish desire to see a show before her son’s public duty.
It’s not outraged that she should be, but ashamed.

The Big Man

So the ‘big man’ of You Tube fame has been charged with assault after ejecting from a train a yob who was attempting to travel without a valid ticket. Needless to say, the miscreant who kept the train waiting for 10 minutes while he abused the conductor hasn’t been charged with anything, despite the fact that using abusive language and attempting to travel without a valid ticket are both against the law – well no surprise there then!
And the police wonder why they’ve lost the confidence of the general public.
I’ve come to the conclusion that this eagerness of the police to charge those who stick up for themselves and others is down to spite – they can’t, or more likely won’t, do anything to protect the general public but they’ll be damned if they’ll let anyone else do it.

A Travesty of Justice

The report in the Daily Express of the gang of Somali women who beat and kicked a white woman, and escaped imprisonment because they were drunk, and their religion caused them to be un-used to drink, is amongst the greatest travesties of justice that I’ve come across in many a long year.

The fact that the CPS didn’t also prosecute them for racially aggravated assault, when they called their victim a white bitch and yelled “kill the white slag” is a further travesty, for if that isn’t racial aggravation I don’t know what is.

Had the boot, quite literally, been on the other foot and it had been a gang of white aggressors against a Muslim victim I have absolutely no doubt that it would have been charged as a racial assault and would have resulted in substantial jail sentences.

When Judge Robert Brown said that those who knock someone to the floor and kick them in the head can expect to go inside and that those who do so while being motivated by racial hatred can expect to go for longer he did no more that reiterate the sentencing guidelines, which he then promptly ignored by suspending what was in any case an extremely lenient sentence of six months imprisonment.

The sentencing guidelines suggest that this is a category 1 offence, sustained assault constitutes greater harm, and the use of a shod foot indicates higher culpability.
Given the further aggravating factors, the ongoing effect upon the victim and the commission of the offence whilst under the influence of alcohol, the starting point of 18 months custody would have been more than justified.

I sincerely hope, although with little expectation, that the CPS appeals the decision as being unduly lenient, for otherwise we are in danger of developing a two-tier justice system where Muslims can beat and kick a white person with little chance of punishment while white people are subject to the full rigours of the law should they assault a Muslim.

Political correction can go too far.