So were they asleep, stupid or just plain skivving? Questions on a
postcard to the judge please! The jury in the Vicky Pryce trial has cost
the country a fortune because they couldn't be bothered to pay
attention.
Court cases do not come cheap. The job of a jury is a
serious one, but this lot have given the whole system a bad name. Their
total inability or reluctance to follow a simple case will lead to
questions about the need for a jury at all.
Surely they can see
that only the evidence they have been given is relevant, that they
cannot second guess what the defendant was thinking and that they've had
all the facts, they cannot get the whole lot told to them again?
Was
there a prat on the panel who so enjoyed feeling important he - almost
certainly a he - decided to drag the whole thing out with a lot of
pointless questions? The list they gave the judge, with its attempt at
legal speak, suggests that. The shameful result is that this total
shambles must be gone through again. Dim-wittedness or dereliction of
duty? Both.
No comments:
Post a Comment