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.