Does the law need to come into the internet age ?

[SIRandyraven]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...-bucks-herts-16676871


In this day and age , I would think most people on Jury service would use Google for information on the case they are on ?
Well I would be tempted.

It seems doing jury service carries a risk these days.
Surely if the person on trial has a history of crime , it should reflect on them ?

[dzug2]

<<Surely my previous should be know to the jury ?>>

No way - it has no bearing on whether you did or did not commit the current offence and could well result in you being convicted of it even if you were innocent.

[SIRandyraven]

Never been in a court room yet.
Maybe I should take a trip one day and get into the public area.
I presume you can still do that these days ?

My brother in law who is a policeman got called up for jury service last year. I did not think the police were allowed to be called up. But he was.
However he was never selected and sat about for two weeks not doing much

[SIRandyraven]

I might the case of previous to the wife ...
Just because I have stayed at work late and come home drunk on the previous 50 occasions ....is no reason to suspect me of doing the same this Friday ...
Case closed

[emmie]

it's not a place that one wants to go to twice.

[jackthehat]

Let' say you have previous convictions for kicking dogs.

In a case of mistaken identity you find yourself in court charged with kicking a dog. Your defence is that although you have no corroborating witnesses you were at home watching TV at the time.

Do you still believe that the jury should hear about your previous convictions?

[Davethedog]

Lets say you have past convictions for dog kicking, someones dog gets kicked, the police say you have previous and arrest you. In this case you didn't do it. If your previous convictions are known to the jury how can it be fair.

Media are not supposed to report on past convictions or anything prejudicial either,

[SIRandyraven]

My cousin was on a rape case back in the 80s.
The chap was found guilty.
At the end of the case they found he had a history of sex offences going back almost 30 years ...
However they had a good idea he had a lot of previous.
Because someone said every time they clear your from the court ...they are talking about his previous .

[SIRandyraven]

Davethedog - good point.

Oh and I don't kick dogs ...lol your safe with me on the streets

[Davethedog]

"Because someone said every time they clear your from the court ...they are talking about his previous" Thats pure ignorance every time I have been on jury service (3 times) They clear the court on points of law, eligibility of evidence and proceedural matters. Why would they talk about his previous?

[jackthehat]

The court is usually cleared for deliberations on a 'point of law' and this can determine what evidence is laid before, or withheld from, the jury. It *can* be a discussion about previous history, but it would be dangerous to assume that was the case every time.

[Davethedog]

Sorry JTH I was typing as you were posting.

[sandyRoe]

Don't the CPS like to think that they have more than a 50% chance of a conviction before charging someone?
You'd sometimes wonder why that bother with trials.

[Davethedog]

Sandy you would think but they line up the evidence and there it is, itmazes me that some people take what I see as obvious as different, not meaning I am right but we can have such a different view of the same facts.

1st time on jury service I did a post office fraud, bloke knew thieves, he and his mates then cashed stolen pension/benifit books. took 4 hours to convict.

Turns out he was the only one plead not guilty all the people he worked with had already been in and out of prison

[SIRandyraven]

3 times wow ....
I have made it to the age of 50 and not been called up once yet.
Not that I want to do it.
Would be right pain at the moment , with work etc ....

[SIRandyraven]

I presume you can refuse to do it ?

[Davethedog]

I have been called 4 times got off number 3 because it was less than 3 years, and no you can't refuse unless you meet certain very strict criteria. Trust me i've tried.

You can put it off for up to a year but thats it.

Its nothing like it is on the telly and is extremly boring.

[eastern]

Contempt of court is a very serious matter, its no good using the "I know understand" ruse. If you live in a country you abide by the laws of that country and if you don't you end up in the big house! I don't think the internet has much bearing on this, it just makes finding out information easier, what you do with it after that is your look out. Greeks eh who would have thought it!

[SIRandyraven]

Money can buy you freedom also ...
Ie stopped for doing 100mph and you plead guilty and take the ban.

You have a few million in the bank ...get top lawyer and plead not guilty ...

And I'm aware of cases where this has been the case.

Someone was caught doing 100 mph plus and his top legal chap got him off on a technicality with the speed gun ...very clever one that also ...

If it had been me ...I would have had to take the ban ...not having the money to get a top gun brief

[eastern]

The way it was worded on the news was along the lines of saying "you are not allowed to access the internet until the end of the trial" A friends father was a law lord in the high courts and he told me that there were certain ways they phrased commens about the accused which hinted at their previous "character". Don't they take previous into consideration when sentencing? I got assaulted 10 years ago whilst walking home, the police got the guy said they knew him as he had been done for it before, went to court I wasn't their cause he pleaded guilty. He lied through his back teeth and got 50 hours hard gardening. The laws an ass, ask any solicitor.