Given that one juror had been discharged, the majority needed was 10-1 ... so it only needed two jurors to be unconvinced (for whatever reason) and there could be no verdict. Unfortunately, I am far from surprised that the defendant's multiple 'get out of jail free' cards found some receptive ears.
a) She's not a *proven liar*;
b) the jury are far better placed to judge the case on the facts (and that will consist of more than her being black/nigerian/driving a car);
c) suggestions that the racial make-up of the Jury could explain 'why' this case hasn't been a slam-dunk for the Prosecution (i.e. any black Jurors will be naturally pre-disposed to finding her Not Guilty) really ought to have no place on a forum like this.
Question for NJ or BM - can barristers (defence or prosecution) seek to influence the sex or race balance of a jury by 'challenging' a certain number of jurors without giving a reason? Or have I been watching too much US crime drama on TV?
"...(i.e. any black Jurors will be naturally pre-disposed to finding her Not Guilty) really ought to have no place on a forum like this."
Seeing as not one of us, I suspect, was in the court-room during this case, and as we are all speculating and guessing then just about anything has a place on a forum like this: You do not get to dictate the contents of the thread, JTH.
I can't access the Telegraph link but the one I provided from the local newspaper says this:
//A Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) was sent back to authorities claiming a Russian //an was behind the wheel of her Nissan Micra …Inquiries revealed he was in Russia with his parents at the time.//
"NJ is best to comment but I *think* Defence cannot challenge but Pros can in certain cases. But it is rarely used."
Yes I answered this query in another related question a day or two back. The right of the defence to challenge jurors was abolished in 1988 but it remains available to the prosecution. However, its use is controlled under strict guidelines issued by the Attorney-General (which are too lengthy to go into here). Suffice it to say that such a challenge is not available in ordinary prosecutions such as this.
Naomi - The court case is to establish whether she is guilty of, amongst other things, lying....as there is no verdict as of yet, she is *not* a proven liar.....a suspected liar/accused of lying? yes. But not yet proven.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.