Announcement

**Ashley** · 30 August 2004, 04:48 PM

Hi again Snoopyseed,

I don't want to get into a legal argument as this forum is essentially a discussion group. I also appreciate your points of view as being someone who has been through the process and thus is more deserving than most of a voice.

However you are quite wrong in respect of the threshold which has to be surmounted in order to be granted an appeal. Also, I think you are confusing the American system with our own in respect of jury challenge.

You cannot appeal just because you think the jury may have been biassed, the Court of Appeal would not entertain it. You have to produce cogent evidence of actual bias. Even then very few appeals will succeed as the conviction will still be judged on the basis of the evidence as a whole, ie. if there was a fault in the trial itself,does the point raised necessarily render the conviction unsafe. The Court of Appeal will be very slow indeed to interfere with the decision of a jury.

Further, a defendant does not have a right to object to a jury panellist per se. Both the jury and the defendant will be asked if any party recognises the other. Like wise, the complainant can view the panel and make an objection if he/she recognises a panellist. No party can object to a member of a jury just because of their sex or they don't like their face.

The conduct of a trial is such that first the complaint or allegation is made and the person against whom it is made has the opportunity to answer it, that is on any view a logical process. If as you suggest, the complainant would like to respond further to the defence evidence then we would get into the ludicrous situation of why then should the defendant not be able to answer the challenges, it could go on ad infinitum.

Remember, the defence have to furnish the prosecution with a defence statement long before the trial begins. They have to set out what their defence is. This puts the prosecution on notice of what they might have to challenge.

Regards
Ashley

**Snoopyseed** · 31 August 2004, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Guest_ashley@30th August 2004 - 04:48 PM
Hi again Snoopyseed,

I don't want to get into a legal argument as this forum is essentially a discussion group. I also appreciate your points of view as being someone who has been through the process and thus is more deserving than most of a voice.

However you are quite wrong in respect of the threshold which has to be surmounted in order to be granted an appeal. Also, I think you are confusing the American system with our own in respect of jury challenge.

You cannot appeal just because you think the jury may have been biassed, the Court of Appeal would not entertain it. You have to produce cogent evidence of actual bias. Even then very few appeals will succeed as the conviction will still be judged on the basis of the evidence as a whole, ie. if there was a fault in the trial itself,does the point raised necessarily render the conviction unsafe. The Court of Appeal will be very slow indeed to interfere with the decision of a jury.

Further, a defendant does not have a right to object to a jury panellist per se. Both the jury and the defendant will be asked if any party recognises the other. Like wise, the complainant can view the panel and make an objection if he/she recognises a panellist. No party can object to a member of a jury just because of their sex or they don't like their face.

The conduct of a trial is such that first the complaint or allegation is made and the person against whom it is made has the opportunity to answer it, that is on any view a logical process. If as you suggest, the complainant would like to respond further to the defence evidence then we would get into the ludicrous situation of why then should the defendant not be able to answer the challenges, it could go on ad infinitum.

Remember, the defence have to furnish the prosecution with a defence statement long before the trial begins. They have to set out what their defence is. This puts the prosecution on notice of what they might have to challenge.

Regards
Ashley

im not going to carry on this discussion as this is not a legal forum, from what i have been told myself from legal teams any defendant has a right to object to certain members of the jury, esp lets say for example if thye know the members or the defendant is male and the jury consists of 12 women, also a lot of what else you said is exactly what i meant, obv for an appeal there would need to be evidence and i said that anyone is entitled to an appeal if thye feel thye were not defended properly or thye can still prove their innocence, like i said thye are entitled to ask for this, i did however not say that this would be a cast iron guarnetee that thye would get an appeal or even be considered for a right to appeal. all im simply saying is that if any convict feels that the trial went wrong in whatever shape of form and thye believe thye are innocent, thye are able to ask if thye can appeal,as above im not saying in any way that this will automatically enable them to go through the appeal process, as the decision is up to the courts.
Im not going to comment any further on this topic as i feel that people seem to be misunderstanding what im saying or im up too at night late writing this, and what is being written is not actually what im trying to say.
[QUOTE] No party can object to a member of a jury just because of their sex or they don't like their face.
I was told by my barristers and QC during my own court appearence that as a female if all members of the jury were male i could object to this and ask for female members to be included, i did not say that you could object to a member of a jury if you didnt like their face, or at least thats what i hoped i had tried to portray.
Snoopy.
Ps im in England not America.

Announcement

Rape statistics, 2001, 2002/3 not yet available

Rape statistics, 2001, 2002/3 not yet available

Comment

Comment