Courtroom Antics & Trial Oddities
- Thread starter Bilderberger
- Start date
OneWingedBird
Beloved of Ra
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 15,431
wasn't there an episode of steptoe and son where they did that?
escargot
Disciple of Marduk
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Messages
- 43,390
- Location
- HM The Tower of London
I disagree. They might just be extremely stubborn people. If they both have equal claim on the house but neither will appear to back down by selling up, this is the only way forward.
A lot of property-division after divorce depends on compromise. This pair are clearly incapable of that. They deserve each other. :lol:
And yup, Steptoe & Son did do it, and it was hilarious. Especially the bit where the old man sits fully-dressed on the lavatory just to keep the son off it, so the son flushes it and drenches the father's clothes. 8)
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,254
- Location
- Eblana
escargot1 said:
Perhaps I'm becoming a CT but I wonder about this case. Could it be a set up? Are the Securocrats reining the judiciary?
I've actually met Lord Philips, the Master of the Rolls, I coulkdn't imagine him getting up to such things. Does dress in odd clothes at times though.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,521
Back during the early 1980s a female Cincinnati prosecuting attorney appeared before a judge widely-known for his absolute contempt for anything even whispering of frivolity in his courtroom.
The matter at hand concerned a recently-arrested man wanted by the State of Kansas on a series of felony warrants. They had to decide the quickest and most efficient method of returning the miscreant to his home state.
"So what's the best way to get Mr. _______ back to Kansas?" asked the judge.
"Let's have him click his heels together three times" said the prosecutor.
Thereupon she remembered before which judge she stood and began mumbling a string of apologies.
"Oh, I'll get YOU, my pretty," responded the judge. "And your little dog, too."
The matter at hand concerned a recently-arrested man wanted by the State of Kansas on a series of felony warrants. They had to decide the quickest and most efficient method of returning the miscreant to his home state.
"So what's the best way to get Mr. _______ back to Kansas?" asked the judge.
"Let's have him click his heels together three times" said the prosecutor.
Thereupon she remembered before which judge she stood and began mumbling a string of apologies.
"Oh, I'll get YOU, my pretty," responded the judge. "And your little dog, too."
GNC
King-Sized Canary
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2001
- Messages
- 33,634
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derb ... 691773.stm
Going to your trial in fancy dress is a great way to piss off the judge and recieve a sterner sentence, Wayne.
Going to your trial in fancy dress is a great way to piss off the judge and recieve a sterner sentence, Wayne.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,521
gncxx said:
I dunno. Michael Jackson seems to have done all right by it. <g>
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
I would never 'flash' at anyone, says judge
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
Last Updated: 9:04am BST 13/06/2007
A senior judge who denies charges of 'flashing' at a woman on a crowded commuter train showed a court a pair of his underpants yesterday while giving evidence in his own defence. :shock:
The defendant brought a pair of his underpants to illustrate his innocence
Sir Stephen Richards, 56, was handed a pair of black Calvin Klein briefs by his counsel, David Fisher, QC.
Magistrates have been told by a young woman that she saw the defendant expose his genitals to her on two separate occasions last October.
Mr Fisher's questions yesterday were aimed at demonstrating the difficulties a man would have in exposing himself while wearing briefs rather than boxer shorts.
He asked: "In order to remove your penis when you're wearing your Calvin Klein briefs is it necessary to use one or two hands?"
Richards replied: "If I had a pee, I would use two hands. It is the natural way of doing it."
The defendant, who sits in the Court of Appeal as Lord Justice Richards, denies two counts of "intentionally exposing his genitals intending that someone would see them and would be caused alarm or distress".
It is alleged that he exposed himself to a woman on two days on a train between Wimbledon and Waterloo in October last year.
Yesterday, he repeatedly told Westminster magistrates' court that he had not exposed himself.
"Why would you not?" his counsel asked.
Momentarily taken aback, Richards replied: "I have no desire to engage in such behaviour whatsoever. I am a happily married family man and I cannot conceive of deriving any form of gratification from exposing my penis.
"I would not wish to cause offence, let alone alarm or distress, to anyone. I value greatly the attributes of courtesy and respect other people and I hope that I have held those attributes throughout my personal life."
The senior district judge, Timothy Workman, sitting unusually with two lay magistrates, has been told that Richards is well known in Wimbledon as a former chairman of the governors of King's College School. He uses Wimbledon station most working days.
Richards told the court: "I cannot see how one could do what is alleged without the very high risk of being seen or detected by other passengers.
"For me personally the risk would be further and very considerable by the fact that so many people know me who use that service."
The main prosecution witness, who cannot be named, told the court on Monday that the man who allegedly exposed himself to her had been in the front carriage of the train.
But Sir Stephen said he did not travel in the first carriage because of overcrowding. Instead, he travelled in the second compartment unless the train arrived before he had walked that far along the platform.
Fellow appeal judge Dame Heather Hallett, who also lives in Wimbledon, told the court that Richards had used the second compartment or one nearer the back of the train every time she had seen him.
She said that Richards was "inevitably" carrying a rucksack when going work at the Royal Courts of Justice - "so much so that I said he looked like a schoolboy swot".
The prosecution witness told the court on Monday that she could not have been sure that the man she identified was wearing a rucksack. It was not being worn by the man she photographed subsequently on her mobile phone.
The last defence witness yesterday was the defendant's wife, Lucy. She told the court that her husband was calm, considerate, kind and proper. "He is a loving and wonderful person," she said - not the sort of man who would ever behave in this way.
A verdict is expected today.
http://tinyurl.com/yph5t5
Whatever the verdict, I suspect that a lot of his courtroom 'gravitas' will have evaporated after this! 8)
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
Last Updated: 9:04am BST 13/06/2007
A senior judge who denies charges of 'flashing' at a woman on a crowded commuter train showed a court a pair of his underpants yesterday while giving evidence in his own defence. :shock:
The defendant brought a pair of his underpants to illustrate his innocence
Sir Stephen Richards, 56, was handed a pair of black Calvin Klein briefs by his counsel, David Fisher, QC.
Magistrates have been told by a young woman that she saw the defendant expose his genitals to her on two separate occasions last October.
Mr Fisher's questions yesterday were aimed at demonstrating the difficulties a man would have in exposing himself while wearing briefs rather than boxer shorts.
He asked: "In order to remove your penis when you're wearing your Calvin Klein briefs is it necessary to use one or two hands?"
Richards replied: "If I had a pee, I would use two hands. It is the natural way of doing it."
The defendant, who sits in the Court of Appeal as Lord Justice Richards, denies two counts of "intentionally exposing his genitals intending that someone would see them and would be caused alarm or distress".
It is alleged that he exposed himself to a woman on two days on a train between Wimbledon and Waterloo in October last year.
Yesterday, he repeatedly told Westminster magistrates' court that he had not exposed himself.
"Why would you not?" his counsel asked.
Momentarily taken aback, Richards replied: "I have no desire to engage in such behaviour whatsoever. I am a happily married family man and I cannot conceive of deriving any form of gratification from exposing my penis.
"I would not wish to cause offence, let alone alarm or distress, to anyone. I value greatly the attributes of courtesy and respect other people and I hope that I have held those attributes throughout my personal life."
The senior district judge, Timothy Workman, sitting unusually with two lay magistrates, has been told that Richards is well known in Wimbledon as a former chairman of the governors of King's College School. He uses Wimbledon station most working days.
Richards told the court: "I cannot see how one could do what is alleged without the very high risk of being seen or detected by other passengers.
"For me personally the risk would be further and very considerable by the fact that so many people know me who use that service."
The main prosecution witness, who cannot be named, told the court on Monday that the man who allegedly exposed himself to her had been in the front carriage of the train.
But Sir Stephen said he did not travel in the first carriage because of overcrowding. Instead, he travelled in the second compartment unless the train arrived before he had walked that far along the platform.
Fellow appeal judge Dame Heather Hallett, who also lives in Wimbledon, told the court that Richards had used the second compartment or one nearer the back of the train every time she had seen him.
She said that Richards was "inevitably" carrying a rucksack when going work at the Royal Courts of Justice - "so much so that I said he looked like a schoolboy swot".
The prosecution witness told the court on Monday that she could not have been sure that the man she identified was wearing a rucksack. It was not being worn by the man she photographed subsequently on her mobile phone.
The last defence witness yesterday was the defendant's wife, Lucy. She told the court that her husband was calm, considerate, kind and proper. "He is a loving and wonderful person," she said - not the sort of man who would ever behave in this way.
A verdict is expected today.
http://tinyurl.com/yph5t5
Whatever the verdict, I suspect that a lot of his courtroom 'gravitas' will have evaporated after this! 8)
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,521
What is a "lay magistrate"?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
OldTimeRadio said:
There are two types of magistrate in England and Wales: lay magistrates and legal professionals permanently employed by the Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom) (until May 2007, the Department for Constitutional Affairs). The first group of about 30,000 people, known as lay Justices of the Peace, sit voluntarily. Half of them are women.
No formal qualifications are required but magistrates need intelligence, common sense, integrity and the capacity to act fairly. Membership is widely spread throughout the area covered and drawn from all walks of life. Police officers, Traffic Wardens and members of the army, as well as their close relatives will not be appointed, nor will those convicted of certain criminal offences. All magistrates recieve three days training, which covers basic law and procedure, before sitting, and continue to receive training throughout their service, which is mostly made up of annual 'refresher courses.' Additional training is given to magistrates in the Youth Court, or those dealing with family matters. New magistrates sit with, and are encouraged to learn from more experienced magistrates.
Magistrates are unpaid volunteers but they may receive allowances to cover travelling expenses and subsistence. They are appointed to their local bench, (a colloquial and legal term for the local court), and are provided with advice, especially on sentencing, by a legally qualified Clerk to the Justices. They will normally sit as a panel of three. Most are members of the Magistrates' Association, which provides advice, training and sentencing guidelines and represents the 30,000 lay magistrates to the Government.
The second group, professional magistrates, are nowadays known as District Judges (Magistrates' Court), although hitherto they were known as Stipendiary Magistrates (which is to say, magistrates who received a stipend or payment). Unlike lay magistrates, District Judges (Magistrates' Court) sit alone and have the authority to sit in any magistrates' court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrate
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Anyhow, back to the nitty-gritty:
By his pants shall ye judge him
As the Calvin Klein brief-wearing judge is cleared of flashing, James Delingpole explains why a chap’s choice of underwear says it all
Two hands or one? Until this week’s trial of the senior judge who has been cleared of “flashing” on a crowded commuter train, I doubt this question had ever occurred to most chaps. After all, it depends on the circumstances, doesn’t it?
For example, if you’re smoking a fag or nursing your pint so your mates don’t spit in it while you’re gone, then obviously you have to extract your equipment with one hand only. Otherwise, you generally use two. It is, as the defendant Sir Stephen Richards rightly observed “the natural way of doing it”.
Sir Stephen was responding to an impertinent but very germane question from his defence counsel as to how he usually removed his tackle from his Calvin Klein underpants. To illlustrate this point – reversing the great court-room tradition of the DNA-rich incriminating garment revealed with a flourish by the prosecution – a pair of CK briefs similar tothe ones regularly worn by Sir Stephen was shown to the court.
There are at least two reasons why this was a defence tactic of great genius. First, anyone looking at these tailored, close-fitting, pouch-like undies would have understood straight away that they are congenitally unsuitable for flashing.
If you’re going to show your willy to carefully-targeted strangers on jam-packed commuter trains, then obviously you want to wear something that you can whip open and closed in a trice, not something that’s going to require seconds of awkward, double--handed fumbling. (Not that I’ve ever tried, you understand; this is just educated guesswork.)
Second, the disinterested observer will surely have looked at those designer undies and gone: “Wow! And there was I thinking all high court judges wore prewar Y-fronts made of hessian and string and boiled wool. But if this guy wears the same kit as Beckham and all the rap stars, he must be a real player.
“If he has a perversion, it’s going to be something groovy. Definitely not something as sordid and sad and dirty-old-man-from-the-1950s as flashing.”
That was more or less my response anyway. Maybe it’s because they’ve become so clichéed, so ubiquitous, but I associate CK briefs with normal, healthy fashion-aware chaps, comfortable with their sexuality and physicality. After all, to get away with briefs so closely-fitted, you need to be quite trim (which, for a 56-year-old like Sir Stephen probably means diet and an exercise routine) and in touch with your body.
This, in turn, presumably, means an active sex life with loyal wife – ergo no need to do weird things on the Wimbledon to Waterloo commuter train.
Amazing, isn’t it, how much we think we can all read into a man’s choice of underpants? They are the most telling of garments. As far as many of us are concerned, by a man’s pants shall ye judge him.
Briefs
What you think they say: You are Robbie, you are Beckham; you have a reasonable body and the requisite six inches. What more could a girl ask?
What they actually say: Either you are a high court judge or you are a sheep. CKs, especially, are such a cliché.
Y-fronts
What you think they say: You are traditional, classic, reliable, tried and tested. Anyway, who’d be so shallow as to judge a man by his underwear?
What they actually say: What? And you were expecting me to have sex with you? In those?
Thong
What you think they say: You are on a golden beach in a land where the free love Sixties ethos never went away. You are dynamite.
What they actually say: You are fat or menopausal or gay, but most likely all three.
Trunks
What you think they say: You are pragmatic (trunks are a happy cross between the brief, the Y-front and the boxer) and discreetly stylish.
What they actually say: You are dull.
Boxers
What you think they say: You are Nick Kamen in the Levis ad; you are extra-fertile because your gonads are given lots of air. What they actually say: You are a tragic Eighties throwback. With your tackle swinging like a wreckers’ ball you could do yourself some serious damage.
Commando (ie, no pants)
What you think it says: You are a free spirit.
What it actually says: Your dry cleaning bill is enormous.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 927390.ece
By his pants shall ye judge him
As the Calvin Klein brief-wearing judge is cleared of flashing, James Delingpole explains why a chap’s choice of underwear says it all
Two hands or one? Until this week’s trial of the senior judge who has been cleared of “flashing” on a crowded commuter train, I doubt this question had ever occurred to most chaps. After all, it depends on the circumstances, doesn’t it?
For example, if you’re smoking a fag or nursing your pint so your mates don’t spit in it while you’re gone, then obviously you have to extract your equipment with one hand only. Otherwise, you generally use two. It is, as the defendant Sir Stephen Richards rightly observed “the natural way of doing it”.
Sir Stephen was responding to an impertinent but very germane question from his defence counsel as to how he usually removed his tackle from his Calvin Klein underpants. To illlustrate this point – reversing the great court-room tradition of the DNA-rich incriminating garment revealed with a flourish by the prosecution – a pair of CK briefs similar tothe ones regularly worn by Sir Stephen was shown to the court.
There are at least two reasons why this was a defence tactic of great genius. First, anyone looking at these tailored, close-fitting, pouch-like undies would have understood straight away that they are congenitally unsuitable for flashing.
If you’re going to show your willy to carefully-targeted strangers on jam-packed commuter trains, then obviously you want to wear something that you can whip open and closed in a trice, not something that’s going to require seconds of awkward, double--handed fumbling. (Not that I’ve ever tried, you understand; this is just educated guesswork.)
Second, the disinterested observer will surely have looked at those designer undies and gone: “Wow! And there was I thinking all high court judges wore prewar Y-fronts made of hessian and string and boiled wool. But if this guy wears the same kit as Beckham and all the rap stars, he must be a real player.
“If he has a perversion, it’s going to be something groovy. Definitely not something as sordid and sad and dirty-old-man-from-the-1950s as flashing.”
That was more or less my response anyway. Maybe it’s because they’ve become so clichéed, so ubiquitous, but I associate CK briefs with normal, healthy fashion-aware chaps, comfortable with their sexuality and physicality. After all, to get away with briefs so closely-fitted, you need to be quite trim (which, for a 56-year-old like Sir Stephen probably means diet and an exercise routine) and in touch with your body.
This, in turn, presumably, means an active sex life with loyal wife – ergo no need to do weird things on the Wimbledon to Waterloo commuter train.
Amazing, isn’t it, how much we think we can all read into a man’s choice of underpants? They are the most telling of garments. As far as many of us are concerned, by a man’s pants shall ye judge him.
Briefs
What you think they say: You are Robbie, you are Beckham; you have a reasonable body and the requisite six inches. What more could a girl ask?
What they actually say: Either you are a high court judge or you are a sheep. CKs, especially, are such a cliché.
Y-fronts
What you think they say: You are traditional, classic, reliable, tried and tested. Anyway, who’d be so shallow as to judge a man by his underwear?
What they actually say: What? And you were expecting me to have sex with you? In those?
Thong
What you think they say: You are on a golden beach in a land where the free love Sixties ethos never went away. You are dynamite.
What they actually say: You are fat or menopausal or gay, but most likely all three.
Trunks
What you think they say: You are pragmatic (trunks are a happy cross between the brief, the Y-front and the boxer) and discreetly stylish.
What they actually say: You are dull.
Boxers
What you think they say: You are Nick Kamen in the Levis ad; you are extra-fertile because your gonads are given lots of air. What they actually say: You are a tragic Eighties throwback. With your tackle swinging like a wreckers’ ball you could do yourself some serious damage.
Commando (ie, no pants)
What you think it says: You are a free spirit.
What it actually says: Your dry cleaning bill is enormous.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 927390.ece
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,521
For some of us our choice of underpants isn't any sort of fashion statement. It's a matter of whispering to the clerk, "Can you please direct me to the CHEAPEST men's underwear?"
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,521
Thanks, Rynner. We have Justices of the Peace in the States, too, but their function is much more limited than in the UK. Their duties differ by state but usually concern themselves with speeding tickets and very minor civil matters. In some jurisdictions (I'm not certain about all) they're permitted to perform marriages. They can also nororize documents.
Traditionally their "courts" were located in their own homes.
They were much more common before modern highway transportation networks were constructed in the late 1950s and 1960s.
Traditionally their "courts" were located in their own homes.
They were much more common before modern highway transportation networks were constructed in the late 1950s and 1960s.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
While we're talking pants, I may as well chuck this one in here:
US town bans low-slung trousers
By Laura Clout and agencies
Last Updated: 2:43am BST 15/06/2007
A town council in Louisiana has made it a crime to wear baggy trousers that expose the underwear.
Residents of Delcambre in the southern US state face six months in jail or a fine of $500 (£254) if they are caught wearing trousers which show their undergarments.
Low-slung trousers worn below the waistband of the underpants became a fashion trend in the 1990s, associated with the culture of hip hop and gangsta rap.
Popularised by musicians such as Snoop Dogg and Ice Cube, the style is said to be inspired by the uniforms of prisoners, who are not permitted to wear belts.
The legislation was introduced by Delcambre councillor Albert Roy, and has been backed up by the Mayor Carol Broussard.
Several residents have complained that the law targets black people, but Mr Broussard denied it is racially motivated.
“White people wear sagging pants, too,” he said.
Town attorney Ted Ayo said the legislation expands on the existing state indecent exposure laws by adding underwear to the list of forbidden exposures.
“This is a new ordinance that deals specifically with sagging pants,” Ayo said.
“It’s about showing off your underwear in public.”
But even Mr Roy, who introduced the ban, said the $500 fine was excessive.
“I think it should be something like $25 (£13),” he said.
Delcambre resident Adam George, wearing low-slung trousers covered by a long T-shirt, said: “It’s not like I’m showing my privates or anything like that. It’s my boxers.”
This is not the first time such a bill has been proposed.
In May 2004, Louisiana state legislator Derrick Shepherd tried to introduce a similar law, but it was rejected after a public outcry.
And in February 2005, Virginia legislators tried and failed to pass a similar law after commentators said it unfairly targeted young Afro-Caribbean men.
http://tinyurl.com/ypssjd
US town bans low-slung trousers
By Laura Clout and agencies
Last Updated: 2:43am BST 15/06/2007
A town council in Louisiana has made it a crime to wear baggy trousers that expose the underwear.
Residents of Delcambre in the southern US state face six months in jail or a fine of $500 (£254) if they are caught wearing trousers which show their undergarments.
Low-slung trousers worn below the waistband of the underpants became a fashion trend in the 1990s, associated with the culture of hip hop and gangsta rap.
Popularised by musicians such as Snoop Dogg and Ice Cube, the style is said to be inspired by the uniforms of prisoners, who are not permitted to wear belts.
The legislation was introduced by Delcambre councillor Albert Roy, and has been backed up by the Mayor Carol Broussard.
Several residents have complained that the law targets black people, but Mr Broussard denied it is racially motivated.
“White people wear sagging pants, too,” he said.
Town attorney Ted Ayo said the legislation expands on the existing state indecent exposure laws by adding underwear to the list of forbidden exposures.
“This is a new ordinance that deals specifically with sagging pants,” Ayo said.
“It’s about showing off your underwear in public.”
But even Mr Roy, who introduced the ban, said the $500 fine was excessive.
“I think it should be something like $25 (£13),” he said.
Delcambre resident Adam George, wearing low-slung trousers covered by a long T-shirt, said: “It’s not like I’m showing my privates or anything like that. It’s my boxers.”
This is not the first time such a bill has been proposed.
In May 2004, Louisiana state legislator Derrick Shepherd tried to introduce a similar law, but it was rejected after a public outcry.
And in February 2005, Virginia legislators tried and failed to pass a similar law after commentators said it unfairly targeted young Afro-Caribbean men.
http://tinyurl.com/ypssjd
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,521
My neighborhood harbors several, er, portly young gentlemen whose idea of fashion design and general decorum involves parambulating the streets with exactly half of their WHITE buttocks cheeks on display.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Juror faces jail for listening to MP3 player under hijab
David Byers and agencies
A Muslim juror faces a possible prison sentence after being discovered listening to an MP3 player under her hijab headscarf during a high-profile murder trial.
In what is considered the first case of its kind, the woman was arrested for contempt of court after another member of the jury passed a note revealing the indiscretion to the judge, Roger Chapple.
The judge - who previously suspected that he had heard "tinny music" in the background, but dismissed it as his imagination - called the woman into court on her own, and said: “You are going to be discharged from this jury. You will play no further role.”
A police officer then stepped forward and escorted her from court. Outside the woman - who is in her 20s, but cannot be identified for legal reasons - was searched, the MP3 player was found and confiscated, and she was arrested. Contempt of court carries a maximum sentence of an unlimited fine and indefinite imprisonment.
Outside the court Ben Maguire, a barrister representing the prosecution, said that it was a "bad contempt" and prison would be the "likely outcome".
“It is unique for all those who are connected with this court to experience a situation where the juror is suspected of listening to a MP3 player under her Islamic headgear," he said.
“Also, it is exceptional for a juror to appear entirely uninterested in the evidence. It is a bad alleged contempt. If contempt is upheld, I would have thought that prison would be the likely outcome,” he said.
The arrest of the juror - which is considered so rare as to be almost unheard of - took place last Wednesday, although it could not be reported until today when the judge lifted a news blackout on the case.
When caught listening to music she was meant to be hearing vital evidence from Alan Wicks, a former businessman on trial for brutally bludgeoning his disabled wife to death after 50 years of marriage. He was later found guilty.
During the trial, members of the jury sitting on the case had become increasingly concerned about the behaviour of the woman, who it emerged had repeatedly tried to avoid legal service.
Weeks earlier, she managed to postpone her first summons. She then answered a second, only to successfully plead toothache two days later.
When the third arrived, and she learnt she had been selected for the Wicks trial which she was told could last up to five weeks, she asked to be excused so she could go job hunting. She mentioned a nursing course she was interested in, but after failing to provide details, she was ordered to serve.
However, problems were reported to have started almost immediately with the first of a number of late arrivals at court, prompting Judge Roger Chapple to repeatedly asked her to change her ways.
The woman continued to arrive late, and left lawyers wondering whether she was “in a world of her own”. Some of those in court became convinced she was doodling instead of reading important documentary exhibits distributed to her and fellow jurors. Neither did she bother putting them away into lever arch files provided for the purpose.
On Tuesday last week, prosecutor Peter Clarke QC asked for her to be discharged, but the judge rejected his application, pointing out the “random selection of jurors was a very important aspect of the trial process”.
Then, last Wednesday, it emerged that she had been listening to her MP3 player, and was discharged and arrested. She was later bailed until July 23, when her case has been listed for a directions hearing before Blackfriars’ senior resident judge Aidan Marron QC.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 049678.ece
David Byers and agencies
A Muslim juror faces a possible prison sentence after being discovered listening to an MP3 player under her hijab headscarf during a high-profile murder trial.
In what is considered the first case of its kind, the woman was arrested for contempt of court after another member of the jury passed a note revealing the indiscretion to the judge, Roger Chapple.
The judge - who previously suspected that he had heard "tinny music" in the background, but dismissed it as his imagination - called the woman into court on her own, and said: “You are going to be discharged from this jury. You will play no further role.”
A police officer then stepped forward and escorted her from court. Outside the woman - who is in her 20s, but cannot be identified for legal reasons - was searched, the MP3 player was found and confiscated, and she was arrested. Contempt of court carries a maximum sentence of an unlimited fine and indefinite imprisonment.
Outside the court Ben Maguire, a barrister representing the prosecution, said that it was a "bad contempt" and prison would be the "likely outcome".
“It is unique for all those who are connected with this court to experience a situation where the juror is suspected of listening to a MP3 player under her Islamic headgear," he said.
“Also, it is exceptional for a juror to appear entirely uninterested in the evidence. It is a bad alleged contempt. If contempt is upheld, I would have thought that prison would be the likely outcome,” he said.
The arrest of the juror - which is considered so rare as to be almost unheard of - took place last Wednesday, although it could not be reported until today when the judge lifted a news blackout on the case.
When caught listening to music she was meant to be hearing vital evidence from Alan Wicks, a former businessman on trial for brutally bludgeoning his disabled wife to death after 50 years of marriage. He was later found guilty.
During the trial, members of the jury sitting on the case had become increasingly concerned about the behaviour of the woman, who it emerged had repeatedly tried to avoid legal service.
Weeks earlier, she managed to postpone her first summons. She then answered a second, only to successfully plead toothache two days later.
When the third arrived, and she learnt she had been selected for the Wicks trial which she was told could last up to five weeks, she asked to be excused so she could go job hunting. She mentioned a nursing course she was interested in, but after failing to provide details, she was ordered to serve.
However, problems were reported to have started almost immediately with the first of a number of late arrivals at court, prompting Judge Roger Chapple to repeatedly asked her to change her ways.
The woman continued to arrive late, and left lawyers wondering whether she was “in a world of her own”. Some of those in court became convinced she was doodling instead of reading important documentary exhibits distributed to her and fellow jurors. Neither did she bother putting them away into lever arch files provided for the purpose.
On Tuesday last week, prosecutor Peter Clarke QC asked for her to be discharged, but the judge rejected his application, pointing out the “random selection of jurors was a very important aspect of the trial process”.
Then, last Wednesday, it emerged that she had been listening to her MP3 player, and was discharged and arrested. She was later bailed until July 23, when her case has been listed for a directions hearing before Blackfriars’ senior resident judge Aidan Marron QC.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 049678.ece
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,521
I'd hoped that this woman would be punished severely UNTIL I read those words. They sound like one of Kafka's political horror novels risen up into unholy life.
Peripart
Antediluvian
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 6,737
In fairness, OTR, I don't think that means that they'd bankrupt the woman, lock her up and throw away the key - we're not quite that brutal on this side of the pond! - it's probably more the case that, since contempt can cover such a huge variety of misdemeanour, the judge would have a lot more leeway than normal, in the words of Gilbert & Sullivan, to "let the punishment fit the crime".OldTimeRadio said:
To be honest, I'd be stunned if she receives more than a £1000 fine and/or 30 days in prison. Anyone here with experience of the British legal system who can correct me?
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,254
- Location
- Eblana
Remember in an islamist country she wouldn't even be allowed on a jury. Actually they dont even have juries under the sharia "law", just a learned judge who has studied the koran.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,521
Peripart said:
Peripart, nobody admires the fairness and decency and humaneness of British jurisprudence more than I do.
That's what stunned me about the open-endedness of this one.
It simply doesn't sound "British."
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,254
- Location
- Eblana
It really depends on the judge though. But if she apologises (& the judge thinks shes genuine) then shes unlikely to be imprisoned or get a heavy fine.
A
Anonymous
Guest
If other people have not been arrested or given a fine or prison time - then could she claim racial discrimination?
Could be a pretty hot issue if she does.
Also - why is it unlimited fine and unlimited prison time for contempt of court and only a limited time for paedophilia or rape or murder or affray or burglary or drug dealing or forgery or....?
"If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass, an idiot!"
Could be a pretty hot issue if she does.
Also - why is it unlimited fine and unlimited prison time for contempt of court and only a limited time for paedophilia or rape or murder or affray or burglary or drug dealing or forgery or....?
"If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass, an idiot!"
Peripart
Antediluvian
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 6,737
There must be someone, surely...OldTimeRadio said:
You're right in what you say, of course - it would make more sense to set some kind of limit, even if the penalty went up to 10 years in prison - at least then you wouldn't get some rogue judge having a bad day giving the defendant life for picking their nose.
Not that that's what happened here, though - it seems that the woman in question was going out of her way to behave as poorly as possible in order to attempt to avoid jury service, even when she was actually sitting in court and supposed to be listening to the evidence.
CarlosTheDJ
Antediluvian
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 7,001
- Location
- Pebble Mill
Frankly she should get the book thrown at her!
Imagine if that was YOU on trial, and the jury were not even bothering to listen? Something to dwell on during your lengthy prison sentence for a crime you didn't commit, I suppose.
Imagine if that was YOU on trial, and the jury were not even bothering to listen? Something to dwell on during your lengthy prison sentence for a crime you didn't commit, I suppose.
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,254
- Location
- Eblana
CarlosTheDJ said:
A big heavy lawbook!
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,521
coldelephant said:
But HAS it been established that the woman is non-Caucasian?
Most of the Muslims I know, of Middle Eastern birth or ancestry, are White.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Ok - assuming she is white then, and none of the muslims I have met have been 
- then there is religious discrimination, which is a kind of discrimination under the law.
- then there is religious discrimination, which is a kind of discrimination under the law.