YOU, THE JURY

Listed below, you will find the ten questions posed by the jury in the first Vicky Pryce trial which leaves you with little faith in the future of the British legal system, or in the abilities of the “Twelve good men (and women) and true to have much in the way of common sense.

I might blame the fact that a lot of the people who I see walking around the streets of this once great nation of ours now seem to know more about “soap opera” justice than how the real thing works; or maybe it’s just that we’re all getting our opinions from the knee-jerk response triggered by the tabloids; or maybe it’s just the “I reckon” culture that social networking seems to have instilled in all of us…?

Either way, I do like to think that there was someone in the jury room who did actually know most of the answers, but I also worry that they might have been the sort of person who is easily shut down by a gobby “Alpha” type who might not have listened to them, but “reckoned” instead that they didn’t really know anything and they’d be better off asking the judge, even though a heck of a lot of these questions – nicked wholesale from Clive Coleman’s article on the BBC website which you can read in full here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460 - do seem to fall under the heading of “the blindingly obvious”, especially to any of us brought up watching Granada’s “Crown Court” back in the 1970s like I was.

And God help any of us if we ever end up in the dock, unless you’re a “much loved” celebrity of course, then I’m sure you’ll be fine, because, as we all know, they could never do anything wrong…

1. You have defined the defence of marital coercion and also explained what does not fall within the definition by way of examples. Please expand upon the definition, specifically “was will overborne”. Provide examples of what may fall within the defence, and does this defence require violence or physical threats?
2. In the scenario where the defendant may be guilty but there is not enough evidence provided by the prosecution at the material time of when she signed [the penalty notice letter] to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt, what should the verdict be: not guilty or unable/unsafe to provide a verdict?
3. If there is debatable evidence supporting the prosecution’s case, can inferences be drawn to arrive at a verdict? If so, inferences/speculation on the full evidence or only where you have directed us to do so, e.g. circumstantial evidence, lies, failure by Vicky Pryce to mention facts to the police.
4. Can you define what is reasonable doubt?
5. Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?
6. Can we infer anything from the fact that the defence did not bring witnesses from the time of the offence such as au pair, neighbours?
7. Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?
8. Can we speculate about the events at the time that Vicky Pryce signed the form, or what was in her mind at that time?
9. Your honour, the jury are considering the facts provided but have continued to ask the questions raised by the police. Given the case has come to court without answers to the police's questions, please advise on which facts in the bundle the jury shall consider to determine a not guilty or guilty verdict.
10. Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling that she had no choice, i.e. she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows and he had ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?

Good, as the saying goes, grief…!