UK judge says internet might 'kill jury system'

The UK's Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has said that social media may well undermine the very basis of the rule of law in the UK.

Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, raised his concerns about the use of the internet by jurors in a lecture published this week.

In his opinion, rampant social networking amongst jurors and online sharing of confidential information is increasingly undermining jury trials.

Fair trials threatened?

England's top judge has said: "If the jury system is to survive as the system for a fair trial... the misuse of the internet by jurors must stop."

Lord Judge is the most senior judge in England and Wales. He claims Twitter and Facebook make it far too easy for campaigners to put pressure on jurors in a trial.

"We cannot accept that the use of the internet, or rather its misuse, should be acknowledged and treated as an ineradicable fact of life, or that a Nelsonian blind eye should be turned to it or the possibility that it is happening," said the Lord Chief Justice

He added: "We cannot stop people tweeting, but if jurors look at such material, the risks to the fairness of the trial will be very serious, and ultimately the openness of the trial process on which we all rely, would be damaged.

"If it is not addressed, the misuse of the internet represents a threat to the jury system which depends, and rightly depends, on evidence provided in court which the defendant can hear and if necessary challenge."

The Lord Chief Justice wants to see warnings that misuse of social networks by jurors could see them held in contempt of court.

The BBC's legal expert Clive Coleman, said: "This is the strongest and most detailed judicial consideration of the threat to the criminal justice system posed by jurors using modern technology.

"It raises major questions of how to police and stop internet use."

techradar.com 19 Nov

Comments :

pete_l

November 20th

1. The opposite is true.

Doctors hate the internet. It lets patients check the accuracy of their diagnoses. It lets patients find out for themselves what the side effects of various drugs are. It lets patients research their symptoms before going to the doctor. In short, it empowers people and allows them to question the wisdom, or stupidity, of the advice they are given. The result is that doctors are frequently shown up as being very, very far from the all-knowing, up-to-date, diligent and infallible sources of treatment that they still think they are.

Lawyers hate the internet for the same reasons

Judges, too.

In fact, the major effect that the internet has had on "the professions" is to remove the veil of mystery and awe that they have built up around themselves, and it has left them exposed as little more than pushers of jargon-laced opinions, frequently with no factual basis that "because we've always done it like that".

If the internet allows jurors to find out FACTS for themslves - things that the prosecution or defence have failed to uncover, or sought to hide - then power to them. Maybe it's time that juries took a more active role: asking questions, presuming to doubt, probing and investigating for themselves rather than sitting passively and only being allowed to decide on the basis of what the establishment feels is all they need to be told. Juries used to be selected BECAUSE they had privileged, local knowledge (and even because they DID know the accused). Maybe we should take back some of that lost background and place it in the courtroom.