Jury Nullification

johnnyskeleton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

In the light of the Nally case, to what extent do you think jury nullification exists in Ireland.

My main concern is that if juries are refusing to convict where they legally should, could it be argued that juries are also refusing to acquit where they legally should?

Is the fact that a Judge can withdraw a case from the jury where they could not as a matter of law convict indicative that jury nullification is a real phenomenon.

Victor

An interesting comparison is the Eureka Rebellion in Australia, whereby juries refused to convict their co-citizens for acts of rebellion, including murder, following obvious oppression by the government and the army. It is difficult to convict anyone in a jury court of participating in a popular revolt.

Note the 1916 executions were after military tribunals, which I understand were illegal.

Referring to DPP v Nally, I think the dominant factor in the acquital at the second trial was the post-trial publicity at the first trial. This raises a problem for balancing the right of free speech and the reporting in the media of matters of public interest, the right of an accused to be vindiacted and the right of the victim(s) and the state to see justice done.

Tom Young

I am surprised we don't have more contributions to this thread!

Our man in Havana

Is there any relief available where a jury convicts on little or no evidence?

johnnyskeleton

Bond-007 wrote: »

Is there any relief available where a jury convicts on little or no evidence?

An appeal to the CCA, but usually it won't even get to a jury if there is little or no evidence of a certain fact.

Hence, I don't see how someone can be convicted of rape and murder as finding evidence of the lack of consent would be practially impossible.

Abraham

Tom Young wrote: »

I am surprised we don't have more contributions to this thread!

When did we move to majority verdict juries ?
Was there a particular case or cases where the blatant uselessness of the old system wherein all 12 must agree before a conviction was possible. I can't find any references to how or why it came about.
Any enlightenment out there ?

johnnyskeleton

Abraham wrote: »

When did we move to majority verdict juries ?
Was there a particular case or cases where the blatant uselessness of the old system wherein all 12 must agree before a conviction was possible. I can't find any references to how or why it came about.
Any enlightenment out there ?

I think from a housekeeping point of view this probably should be a new thread, but in any case majority verdicts of at least 10 have been around since at least the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984. As to why, I don't know what the position was before that, maybe check the dail debates.

Our man in Havana

Most likely the cost of retrials required when a jury was hung 11-1 or 10-2. Also if a juror was dismissed it could have collapsed the trial.

Gobán Saor

Richard Dawkins, having beaten up God, has trained his intellectual firepower on the failings of the jury system. He wrote an article for the Observer in which he calls the idea of trial by jury "one of the most conspicuously bad good ideas anyone ever had"
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1997-11-16trialbyjury.shtml
He goes on to point out why and finishes up with a thought which I find intuitively persuasive.

And should I be charged with a serious crime here’s how I want to be tried. If I know myself to be guilty, I’ll go with the loose cannon of a jury, the more ignorant, prejudiced and capricious the better. But if I am innocent, and the ideal of multiple independent decision-takers is unavailable, please give me a judge. Preferably Judge Hiller Zobel.

Note:Remember Judge Hiller Zobel? It was he who reduced Louise Woodward's murder conviction (a jury verdict) to involuntary manslaughter and sentenced her to time already served, in effect freeing her immediately. The baying masses didn't approve.

johnnyskeleton

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Richard Dawkins, having beaten up God, has trained his intellectual firepower on the failings of the jury system. He wrote an article for the Observer in which he calls the idea of trial by jury "one of the most conspicuously bad good ideas anyone ever had"
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1997-11-16trialbyjury.shtml
He goes on to point out why and finishes up with a thought which I find intuitively persuasive.

Note:Remember Judge Hiller Zobel? It was he who reduced Louise Woodward's murder conviction (a jury verdict) to involuntary manslaughter and sentenced her to time already served, in effect freeing her immediately. The baying masses didn't approve.

That article certainly proves, if such proof were ever needed, that Richard Dawkins cannot see beyond his own navel. Just one of the many flaws in his logic is he seems to think that jurys are bad because of a) large defamation awards and because of b) inconsistency of verdicts. The fact that juries have been consistently generous with defamation awards reveals the dearth of research and actual knowledge that went into this, and shows that his argument is internally inconsistent. So it's slightly more accurate than everything else he's ever written.

Abraham

Bond-007 wrote: »

Most likely the cost of retrials required when a jury was hung 11-1 or 10-2. Also if a juror was dismissed it could have collapsed the trial.

Just been told today that one of the famous Dunne family (not not Ben - it's the guys from Rialto) who were involved in bringing Heroin onto the Dublin scene in the 1980's were involved in some way in the case that eventually led to the changing of the jury system. There was some suggestion of rigging the jury system in one trial and it was mentioned in some book later. Anyone know the name of the book which I'm told was about the drug scene in Ireland back then ?