steady. Please take care as there is clearly a case in play with that having just occurred and the current question is how should it proceed? Following legal argument, jury discharged before the defence case proceeded. Loose comment now could prejudice a retrial of the remaining issues on an indictment, especially if the commentary is about the prospects of a conviction ahead and the reasons for it being discharged at half time on any evidential basis.
Come off it it’s reported on the bbc ffs. If some roffers do have knowledge of the facts then they should keep quiet (and would have been better advised not to hint darkly about such things on other threads in times gone by), but it’s a perfectly valid question to ask a board of lawyers, without speculating as to what happened here (which in any case one assumes is down to some form of SFO fvck up)
there is nothing pompous about that post, dux, and just because this is not your area doesn't mean you need to Do a Johnson about it*.
The BBC coverage and others have been very very specifically limited in what they have said about the fact of the jury having been discharged because they are under particular duties in view of the circumstances, and we should avoid speculation. Whether RoFers know stuff or don't know stuff, we shouldn't be airing the whatabouts.
It may not be important to you but actually the integrity of jury trials and the discharge of duties under the Code of Conduct for Crown Prosecutors are big issues surrounded by opportunities for persons speaking out to be in contempt and/or pervert the course of public justice etc.
The OP was entirely hypothetical and a perfectly appropriate question to ask on a legal board. Until some clown posted a link, and everyone else bundled in, it would have stayed that way.
3-ducks you misunderstand the dynamic and I say the following respectfully and patiently:
This was a ‘hypothetical question’ in the face of a widely reported decision. The decision was reported in limited detail for press restriction reasons.
Your comment that it was hypothetical until someone posted a link illustrates how non- hypothetical it actually was or how vulnerable it was to immediate identification.
If you have any understanding of criminal procedure you will know that the decision to discharge now requires the Prosecutor and the Court to make some further decisions which I’m not going to describe or give a view on here other than to say the consequence of that process may be the empanelment of a new jury or a decision not to continue with the trial. If it proceeds then those jurors chosen must not have been prejudiced by statements made about the reason for the discharge.
Even speculation about theoretical or hypothetical reasons why they were discharged may be sufficient in this case to make it difficult for a jury not to have regard to those facts in considering the evidence. Hence the reporting ban on why discharged and hence my suggestion that we don’t speculate.
Obviously I am not going to substantiate that with specifics but clearly it is right that we (a load of lawyers, after all) should avoid any comment which may have the propensity to prejudice either the jury or the decision. As you don’t know what they might be then you’re not well placed to decide what is and isn’t ok to speak about.
Dux, you total apology for a court jester, the OP has accepted the point and wants the thread deleted. I know you have the concentration span of a bogey but YOU are the one contesting that everything I said was nonsense. Laughable cretin.
Everything you said IS nonsense waffle. Empanelment blaaa. Look at twitter. You think all those people are dreadful contravenes of lady justice's virtue too?
Clergs the law applies to everyone in the public domain in this jurisdiction not just the Crown and Defendants and their representatives. I’m none of them.
This is no different to the previous threads where people have started mouthing off about cases which are still before the Crown courts and some of us have said wtf are you doing and others have said I don’t care.
Either you get this or you don’t and we must just disagree but it surprises me that a lawyer is happy to just say twitter means a court order is meaningless and she can say what she likes here.
There is no law that prevents anyone from saying oh look that old guy's still on trial I thought he died looks like the jury did die of boredom at his dullard bank chat OR ANOTHER EXPLANATION
Yeah the reasons are not reportable just as well no one has a fooking clue and we are discussing why a jury might be discharged which we are completely and utterly free to do.
Your "explanation" is mince. I cannot wait for your generation to shuffle off into retirement.
no it is not - you speculate all you like and you hit on something not being sure of if it is dangerous or not and you plant a seed in the mind of the reader. Someone here could easily be on the next jury - a London based lawyer reading your speculations.
But anyway there you go moving to rude and rant and some generational nonsense. I tried to set out clear reasoning that was not rude but never mind.
Assuming for one minute that none of us work for or have worked for Barclays or have any special information on the case then there is nothing to stop us speculating as to why the jury was discharged based on the bbc link. Even though the case is known that is still arguing a hypothetical.
Erm clergs, either you know what mutters does for a living - in which case you must realise that he has really quite good at this stuff - or you don’t - in which case, please be advised that he is really quite good at this stuff.
Please indicate that you have understood what is being posted here by calling me a tede.
if someone was selected as a juror who read this thread AND this thread actually did do a speculation then they should disclose it and the judge can make a decision. Not to do so puts them in contempt in the same way they would be if they declined to say they went to school with the defendant or stg
oh halt yee with that stray tongue. planteth yee the seed of doubt, and thou shalt divert a potential juror's swayful, wayward and weak mind to a piece of evidence which may or may not have anything to do with anything. Let me be the will of the rule of law. Listen to my word for I am an upholder of the very system which you now here try to blacken with your devious and ugly foolish little incompetent and inferior minds.
Strutter, that's why I said the retirement thing. Too many codgers in the current generation of "good guys" confidently spouting waffle and getting overpaid for same.
Tecco the point being if any of those lawyers were to post facts of which they became aware in their capacity as lawyers working for Barclays then they could be in contempt. A Scottish tax lawyer, a in-house gc dabbler and a villain from a Wodehouse novel speculating about it would not be.
Oh ffs clergs. Barclays are bloody huge in the CF world, they even had their own PE house that got spun out into equistone If memory serves. Just because some seagulls on a barren rock in the Hebrides don’t come into contact with them doesn’t mean that the absolute vast vast majority of lawyers or CF teams or whatever don’t.
Sorry - are you trying to imply that he is acknowledged expert and leader in his field not through competence and hard work but because of some judicious favour doing by an unnamed organisation?
And the responsibility would be on any putative jurors to disclose they’d read stuff on the internet that might prejudice their opinion. The judge could then decide.
'if someone was selected as a juror who read this thread AND this thread actually did do a speculation then they should disclose it and the judge can make a decision. '
I do. And one of the infinite universe me’s is married to Lucy Verasamy who approves of my affair with Clergs. And often joins in. Sleep well with that thought.
I wasn’t ranting Bailey. There may be a retrial and there may not be. That would turn on the Crown’s prospects of a conviction in t2.
There are in fact specific reasons not just all sorts of. I was trying to get some people to avoid clumsily trampling on those and impacting the prospects point. You get me. Never mind.
le Chuff did indeed and Heffalumo as he is now known was assiduous in his commentary about things subject to continuing proceedings.
FWIW I agree with your stance on this thread. The hysterical “I shit on the jury system I do” bollox from the tax harpie is tired now and it was to that which my comment was directed. Her inane, teenage shrieking at anyone who happens to disagree with her is quite vile. Apologies for any confusion.
You genuinely can’t expect 12 folks off the street to really understand the massively technical issues that inevitably arise (even if they can stay awake during the tedious months that they take).
Would also remove at a stroke the risks of Mutters portentous flummery about mis-trials and keeping stuff away from juries.
Heffalump- I reported it multiple times and Judy actually asked for that in terms (in shouty CAPS no less) and yet the RoF Online Bollockfest Prevention Unit remains unmoved. Or non-existent.
0
0
Taking bungs.
0
0
Facebooked about it?
0
0
Possibly heard evidence that was inadmissible and was so important that the judge thought they couldn’t ‘strike it from their minds’
0
0
steady. Please take care as there is clearly a case in play with that having just occurred and the current question is how should it proceed? Following legal argument, jury discharged before the defence case proceeded. Loose comment now could prejudice a retrial of the remaining issues on an indictment, especially if the commentary is about the prospects of a conviction ahead and the reasons for it being discharged at half time on any evidential basis.
I'd be inclined to let this thread go no further.
0
0
Fair point mutters but no one reads this shit/
0
0
It's an entirely hypothetical question, you pompous oaf. No-one mentioned any specific case.
0
0
Agreed Mutters. I was actually just trying to understand it.
0
0
JAMIE - CAN YOU PLEASE DELETE THIS THREAD?
I AM GOING TO REPORT IT AS WELL.
0
0
PANIC !!
LOUD NOISES!!!!
FFS
0
0
Actually this place has been used in the past when loose lips sank ships etc. and mutters is entirely correct.
0
0
The jury should definitely have been discharged in the Verdict film
0
0
If you do not know then it is not my job to inform you.
0
0
Implying I have a heart. Not a good start.
0
1
SHHH its a secret, a real one, not made up bollocks or anything but real, shhhhhhh
0
0
Have to ask wibble, did you have to attend a special kind of inverse charm school to be quite as much of a weapon as you are?
0
0
Come off it it’s reported on the bbc ffs. If some roffers do have knowledge of the facts then they should keep quiet (and would have been better advised not to hint darkly about such things on other threads in times gone by), but it’s a perfectly valid question to ask a board of lawyers, without speculating as to what happened here (which in any case one assumes is down to some form of SFO fvck up)
0
0
there is nothing pompous about that post, dux, and just because this is not your area doesn't mean you need to Do a Johnson about it*.
The BBC coverage and others have been very very specifically limited in what they have said about the fact of the jury having been discharged because they are under particular duties in view of the circumstances, and we should avoid speculation. Whether RoFers know stuff or don't know stuff, we shouldn't be airing the whatabouts.
It may not be important to you but actually the integrity of jury trials and the discharge of duties under the Code of Conduct for Crown Prosecutors are big issues surrounded by opportunities for persons speaking out to be in contempt and/or pervert the course of public justice etc.
Facts m8.
*spaff it up the wall etc
0
0
agreed that sayong "oh look a headline I wonder why that happened" is far from even a medium sized deal
if I were a jury on a fraud case I would do a dirty protest until they sent me home
but assume it isn't that
0
0
ps that is the most pompous thing I have ever read, muttley
0
0
oh but we're officahs of the COHT
*morris dance style mimsey*
0
0
I doubt it
0
0
got shite all to do with any officers of the court nonsense
0
0
what and you would be all over mumsnet (a considerably more influential group btw) saying NO SPECULATING ON THE NEWS THE POLICE MIGHT COME!
0
0
The OP was entirely hypothetical and a perfectly appropriate question to ask on a legal board. Until some clown posted a link, and everyone else bundled in, it would have stayed that way.
0
0
ofc it's a reasonable q and it's equally reasonable to wonder what happened in the linked case!
unless you are secretly inhouse counsel at barclays or sthg
0
0
*pauses to smoke cigar*
0
0
do you think I could get a short notice summons to be a juror on the re-trial?
anything against them? oh no. NOT AT ALL. I shall then channel strutter.
0
0
Only if you got me really drunk first and used loads of lube
0
0
3-ducks you misunderstand the dynamic and I say the following respectfully and patiently:
This was a ‘hypothetical question’ in the face of a widely reported decision. The decision was reported in limited detail for press restriction reasons.
Your comment that it was hypothetical until someone posted a link illustrates how non- hypothetical it actually was or how vulnerable it was to immediate identification.
If you have any understanding of criminal procedure you will know that the decision to discharge now requires the Prosecutor and the Court to make some further decisions which I’m not going to describe or give a view on here other than to say the consequence of that process may be the empanelment of a new jury or a decision not to continue with the trial. If it proceeds then those jurors chosen must not have been prejudiced by statements made about the reason for the discharge.
Even speculation about theoretical or hypothetical reasons why they were discharged may be sufficient in this case to make it difficult for a jury not to have regard to those facts in considering the evidence. Hence the reporting ban on why discharged and hence my suggestion that we don’t speculate.
Obviously I am not going to substantiate that with specifics but clearly it is right that we (a load of lawyers, after all) should avoid any comment which may have the propensity to prejudice either the jury or the decision. As you don’t know what they might be then you’re not well placed to decide what is and isn’t ok to speak about.
0
0
So mutters works for Barclays and would make a poor spy.
0
0
No I don’t. I work in a law firm.
0
0
Don't lecture me, big fella - tell the OP.
0
0
I would be a poor spy though. I’d be describing my garden to such detail they’d have coordinates on me in 5 mins.
Your deductive* skills suggest you’d be a pretty poor one too, mind.
(*my phone wants to say seductive - same comment)
0
0
Don't lecture anyone it's just the nonsense
I thought you said earlier that being a lawyer was irrelevant
0
0
Well to everyone else this is hypothetical and interesting in theory but you post like you act for one of the parties
0
0
Dux, you total apology for a court jester, the OP has accepted the point and wants the thread deleted. I know you have the concentration span of a bogey but YOU are the one contesting that everything I said was nonsense. Laughable cretin.
0
0
I reckon it was because one of the jurors saw the judge's penis at the urinal and now he's embarrassed
0
0
Everything you said IS nonsense waffle. Empanelment blaaa. Look at twitter. You think all those people are dreadful contravenes of lady justice's virtue too?
We are all free to speculate.
0
0
Exactly, abbeywrll. Oh it's hot secret gossip about our client! Oh wait.
0
0
Clergs the law applies to everyone in the public domain in this jurisdiction not just the Crown and Defendants and their representatives. I’m none of them.
This is no different to the previous threads where people have started mouthing off about cases which are still before the Crown courts and some of us have said wtf are you doing and others have said I don’t care.
0
0
Either you get this or you don’t and we must just disagree but it surprises me that a lawyer is happy to just say twitter means a court order is meaningless and she can say what she likes here.
0
0
There is no law that prevents anyone from saying oh look that old guy's still on trial I thought he died looks like the jury did die of boredom at his dullard bank chat OR ANOTHER EXPLANATION
You're just being a tede.
0
0
Sorry what court order is this? The one that means it's not totally in the public domain and the BBC have broken the law by reporting on it?
0
0
It is usually Heffalumo who makes this point
0
0
"You're just being a tede"
What, Mutters?! You're joking, right?
0
0
No ...the fact of the discharge is reportable but the reasons are not. Hence.
0
0
Surprise. Clergs and 3-dux, faced with a clear explanation still can’t compute and go into insult mode. I tried but fook this.
0
0
*shakes head and backs away from thread slowly*
It’s only a matter of time before someone gets properly bummed for contempt over speculation on the twitter er al.
0
0
Careful mutters she'll accuse you of harassing her.
0
0
Yeah the reasons are not reportable just as well no one has a fooking clue and we are discussing why a jury might be discharged which we are completely and utterly free to do.
Your "explanation" is mince. I cannot wait for your generation to shuffle off into retirement.
0
0
no it is not - you speculate all you like and you hit on something not being sure of if it is dangerous or not and you plant a seed in the mind of the reader. Someone here could easily be on the next jury - a London based lawyer reading your speculations.
But anyway there you go moving to rude and rant and some generational nonsense. I tried to set out clear reasoning that was not rude but never mind.
0
0
Assuming for one minute that none of us work for or have worked for Barclays or have any special information on the case then there is nothing to stop us speculating as to why the jury was discharged based on the bbc link. Even though the case is known that is still arguing a hypothetical.
0
0
Erm clergs, either you know what mutters does for a living - in which case you must realise that he has really quite good at this stuff - or you don’t - in which case, please be advised that he is really quite good at this stuff.
Please indicate that you have understood what is being posted here by calling me a tede.
0
0
(And having just seen the 17.02)
if someone was selected as a juror who read this thread AND this thread actually did do a speculation then they should disclose it and the judge can make a decision. Not to do so puts them in contempt in the same way they would be if they declined to say they went to school with the defendant or stg
0
0
ZG - pretty fooking big assumption, I personally know seven lawyers who have done secondments at Barclays, all from the same firm.
0
0
oh halt yee with that stray tongue. planteth yee the seed of doubt, and thou shalt divert a potential juror's swayful, wayward and weak mind to a piece of evidence which may or may not have anything to do with anything. Let me be the will of the rule of law. Listen to my word for I am an upholder of the very system which you now here try to blacken with your devious and ugly foolish little incompetent and inferior minds.
Chill out ffs.
0
0
Strutter, that's why I said the retirement thing. Too many codgers in the current generation of "good guys" confidently spouting waffle and getting overpaid for same.
0
0
I don't think I even know anyone with a Barclays current account
0
0
Heh@ig
0
0
Total wastes of oxygen eh.
Unlike, say, niche tax lawyers.
0
0
Tecco the point being if any of those lawyers were to post facts of which they became aware in their capacity as lawyers working for Barclays then they could be in contempt. A Scottish tax lawyer, a in-house gc dabbler and a villain from a Wodehouse novel speculating about it would not be.
0
0
Oh ffs clergs. Barclays are bloody huge in the CF world, they even had their own PE house that got spun out into equistone If memory serves. Just because some seagulls on a barren rock in the Hebrides don’t come into contact with them doesn’t mean that the absolute vast vast majority of lawyers or CF teams or whatever don’t.
0
0
Sorry - are you trying to imply that he is acknowledged expert and leader in his field not through competence and hard work but because of some judicious favour doing by an unnamed organisation?
I assume that you have proof, yes?
0
0
And the responsibility would be on any putative jurors to disclose they’d read stuff on the internet that might prejudice their opinion. The judge could then decide.
0
0
At the risk of shining a light on something which may be best left in darkness, who is the Wodehouse villain?
0
0
Dux
0
0
I see him as a part formed Spode
0
0
Heh!
0
0
'if someone was selected as a juror who read this thread AND this thread actually did do a speculation then they should disclose it and the judge can make a decision. '
Are you insane?
0
0
If only we knew his Eulalie.
0
0
I have a barclaycard. Now I've strayed across this bore off should I gouge my own eyes out in case I get called for jury duty?
0
0
I think if you adhere to the infinite universes theory you will definitely commit a crime so better had
0
0
I do. And one of the infinite universe me’s is married to Lucy Verasamy who approves of my affair with Clergs. And often joins in. Sleep well with that thought.
0
0
Absolute state of this.
0
0
The people who should be on trial are Brown and the BOE governor who created the whole mess
0
0
TLDR, so then did we ever get to any inference as to why a jury might be discharged halfway through a trial?
0
0
TLDR, so then did we ever get to any inference as to why a jury might be discharged halfway through a trial?
Because there’s going to be a retrial?
0
0
All sorts of reasons in other words. Pointless speculating. Even more pointless to rant at people about their views on it.
0
1
I wasn’t ranting Bailey. There may be a retrial and there may not be. That would turn on the Crown’s prospects of a conviction in t2.
There are in fact specific reasons not just all sorts of. I was trying to get some people to avoid clumsily trampling on those and impacting the prospects point. You get me. Never mind.
le Chuff did indeed and Heffalumo as he is now known was assiduous in his commentary about things subject to continuing proceedings.
0
0
You were not my reference re ranting Mutts. Of that I assure you.
0
0
Ah ok. Thanks. Bit woahfook after this thread.
0
0
Teacher’s pet.
0
0
(@bailey)
0
0
I am not sure you saw my ref to you in the Wang is a paedo nursery rhyme thread called ‘sad’.
0
0
FWIW I agree with your stance on this thread. The hysterical “I shit on the jury system I do” bollox from the tax harpie is tired now and it was to that which my comment was directed. Her inane, teenage shrieking at anyone who happens to disagree with her is quite vile. Apologies for any confusion.
0
0
I saw that Mutts. It got a heh until your old reference. Then I realised you weren’t as funny as I remembered.
0
0
Heh. Shrieking tax harpie.
You and words, sitting in a tree...
thanks for that - you know your jury onions (this is not a euphemism) so that is affirmatory.
and thanks to Strutter for the unsolicited generosity.
0
0
Strutter is always soliciting for something even if you were not!
0
0
I want you two to please use precautions.
If you don’t stretch and limber up correctly as well as warm down properly, this mutual backslapping could cause a serious injury.
Much as I agree with the both of you, please, just stop it.
0
0
Weird
0
0
Not really, given the context.
0
0
Explain
0
0
Ugh bailey it is not hard to see why you have to dedicate yourself to work
0
0
Too Long: Didn’t Listen
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-06-11/drug-trial-abandoned-after-jurors-play-sudoku/2467112
0
0
Fraud trials should now be heard by Judges alone.
You genuinely can’t expect 12 folks off the street to really understand the massively technical issues that inevitably arise (even if they can stay awake during the tedious months that they take).
Would also remove at a stroke the risks of Mutters portentous flummery about mis-trials and keeping stuff away from juries.
6 month trials would be reduced to 3 or 4 weeks.
0
0
Calm down, I wasn’t responding on that actual point.
But seeing as you ask, yes lots of trials do get derailed by strange things happening in the Jury.
And the longer the trial lasts, the more risk there is of such a derailing.
0
0
this thread should be deleted
0
0
Yes, everyone will have saved the hilarious bits by now.
More of this sort of thing please.
0
0
What goes on behind the scenes
https://youtu.be/u-2jqTXKQyU
0
0
Heffalump- I reported it multiple times and Judy actually asked for that in terms (in shouty CAPS no less) and yet the RoF Online Bollockfest Prevention Unit remains unmoved. Or non-existent.
Join the discussion