‘Jurors should face up to two years in prison if they search the internet for information about cases beyond what is revealed in court, the Law Commission has recommended.’
The Guardian, 9th December 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Guidelines should be given on the use of computer-generated exhibits, Dr Gareth Norris writes.’
Criminal Law and Justice Weekly,
Source: www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk
‘A Luton juror, who was jailed for contempt of court after carrying out research on the internet during a trial, is taking her case to Europe.’
BBC News, 5th December 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The attorney general is to begin issuing legal warnings to steer Twitter users away from prejudicial comments that might force trials to be abandoned.’
The Guardian, 4th December 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Jurors in the trial of two men accused of murdering the soldier Lee Rigby have been instructed not to research the case or view it with ‘any preconceived beliefs or ideas’.”
The Guardian, 28th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Niqab-wearing defendants should be obliged to remove their veils before giving evidence say 90% of my colleagues in a poll conducted by the Bar Council for The Times (although personally I’d like to see what the participation rate was for that). Former justice secretary, Ken Clarke, agrees, likening wearing a full-face veil in the witness box to giving evidence ‘in a bag’. The Lord Chief Justice says that trial judges should be able to decide whether a defendant may give evidence wearing a face-veil or not, but promises to provide guidance.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 7th November 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“The most senior judge in England and Wales says a public consultation will open on the ‘divisive’ subject soon.”
Daily Telegraph, 5th November 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The jury that will decide the guilt or innocence of Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and six other defendants was sworn in at the Old Bailey with a warning from the judge that ‘British justice is on trial’.”
The Independent, 30th October 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“In 1894 Edward Marshall Hall KC defended the Austrian-born prostitute Marie Hermann, charged with the murder of a client whose body she hid in a trunk. The jury acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter after what has become his most famous jury speech ending with, ‘Look at her, gentlemen of the jury, look at her. God never gave her a chance, won’t you?’ The personalities may have changed and the language less flowery but the basic principle of a jury trial is the same – we judge our peers on the evidence and that is the evidence presented in court. This includes our assessment of other human beings, not just what they say but how they say it.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 25th September 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Yesterday, before His Honour Judge Peter Murphy ruled that a female Muslim defendant in a criminal trial must remove her face-covering veil (niqaab) whilst giving evidence, Home Office Minister Jeremy Brown said he was ‘instinctively uneasy’ about restricting religious freedoms, but that there should be a national debate over banning the burka.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must remove it to give evidence, a judge has ruled.”
BBC News, 16th September 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“We’re finally up against it now, aren’t we? After years of dancing round the issue, the law is finally called upon to make a specific ruling on the wearing of the niqab. So let’s make sure we know what we are talking about, because without a doubt there will be proponents and opponents alike who seek to interpret the decision (whatever it may be) to suit their cause.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 16th September 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Decision due on Monday on whether woman must show face in court or will be allowed to wear full-face veil.”
The Guardian, 16th September 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Legislation tells us what the law is, but rarely reveals why. The Juries Act 1974, s 1 states every person shall be qualified to serve as a juror… if… he is [on the electoral register] and is not less than eighteen nor more than seventy years of age.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 22nd August 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“People up to the age of 75 will soon be able to sit as jurors in England and Wales under plans announced by Criminal Justice Minister Damian Green today.”
Ministry of Justice, 20th August 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
“People up to the age of 75 will be able to sit on juries in England and Wales, according to plans announced by the criminal justice minister
today.”
The Guardian, 20th August 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Internet has changed the world and many say the law is struggling to keep up, writes Lyndon Harris.”
Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 17th August 2013
Source: www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk
“Do CPS press conferences after charge risk prejudicing a trial, asks Dan Bunting.”
Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 10th August
Source: www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk
“On 29 July 2013, two men, Mr Davey and Mr Beard, were sentenced to two months’ immediate custody each for contempt of court. On 23 July 2013, they were, despite their protestations of innocence, found to have committed contempt of court. The transcript is available here.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 5th August 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Jurors should be given clearer instructions on the dangers of using the internet during trials, Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, has said after two jury members were jailed for contempt of court.”
Daily Telegraph, 30th July 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024