Child grooming gang found guilty

This is quite worrying

It is of great concern that the chairman of the British National Party appeared to have been aware of the verdicts before they were even communicated to the court," he said.
"We are left with no option but to conclude that the confidentiality of the jury's deliberations must have been breached and we submit the proper inference should be drawn that there must have been improper communication from within the jury room to Nick Griffin and perhaps others."

If true then could this could be grounds for a mis trial ?

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16224681

Originally Posted by martyh

This is quite worrying



If true then could this could be grounds for a mis trial ?

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16224681

Full quote

But members of the defence team said they plan to appeal the sentences, claiming the race issue unfairly influenced the case - and even the deliberations of the jury.
Alias Yousaf, the lawyer for Adil Khan who was jailed for eight years, said outside the court there had been attempts by right-wing organisations to influence the outcome "from the outset of this trial".
"It is of great concern that the chairman of the British National Party appeared to have been aware of the verdicts before they were even communicated to the court," he said.
"We are left with no option but to conclude that the confidentiality of the jury's deliberations must have been breached and we submit the proper inference should be drawn that there must have been improper communication from within the jury room to Nick Griffin and perhaps others."

He didn't offer any proof,just insinuations.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Full quote





He didn't offer any proof,just insinuations.

Well lets hope no one was feeding Griffin with information especially considering he tweeted 100% accurate verdicts 2 days before the verdicts where announced in court .It's not the first time that information has been passed outside from the jury .But as you say the are un proven allegations and have been examined by the judge ,who it has to said may be a little blind to certain issues .

Well we will see won't we.I suspect that whatever happens they will serve a prison sentence of some duration.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well we will see won't we.I suspect that whatever happens they will serve a prison sentence of some duration.

Indeed .I wonder if the sentences would have been harsher if race had been included as one of the factors,because i have no doubt that any appeal will be centered about race

Originally Posted by martyh

Well lets hope no one was feeding Griffin with information especially considering he tweeted 100% accurate verdicts 2 days before the verdicts where announced in court .It's not the first time that information has been passed outside from the jury .But as you say the are un proven allegations and have been examined by the judge ,who it has to said may be a little blind to certain issues .

Couldn't he have simply guessed? It seems quite likely. After all I think we all presumed they would be found guilty...

Originally Posted by Damien

Couldn't he have simply guessed? It seems quite likely. After all I think we all presumed they would be found guilty...

He could have done but the problem is that when he tweeted he predicted exactly that 7 had been found guilty ,and under investigation it was revealed that at the time of the tweet it reflected the current thinking of the jury at the time they reached those decisions in the jury room .So although it is possible that he guessed it right at the time it is unlikely .Griffin recanted later and said he had heard about the verdicts on Facebook

As the jury was making their deliberations under conditions of strict secrecy, BNP leader Nick Griffin tweeted that seven of the defendants had been found guilty.
Urgent inquiries established that he was correct about the jurors’ current thinking, leading defence barristers to allege that one of their number must have been in communication with the extremists.
Mr Griffin later suggested he had heard about the verdicts on Facebook – apparently on the page of far-Right splinter group, Infidels of Great Britain.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-arrests.html

[Julian]

How can " urgent enquiries " establish what the jury's current thinking was at that time?

As anyone who has served on a jury knows NOONE is allowed to know what is discussed, that inludes Judges and anyone else.

If it is the case that a Juror was relating information to the BNP then surely it would have to be a mistrial? Not only because of the leaking but the juror's impartiality would be very questionable as would the faith that the verdict was not influenced by others.

[nomadking]

Or did he just come to similar conclusions to the jury about the strength and reliability of evidence against each of them?

[Osem]

If a retrial is ordered, I hope the same standards will be applied as were in the Lawrence case where it was deemed that, even allowing for years of highly public accusations, claims etc. about the defendants, it was still considered possible for them to have a fair trial.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Or did he just come to similar conclusions to the jury about the strength and reliability of evidence against each of them?

How would he reach the same conclusion on 7 out of nine of the defendants at the same time ,it would take a mighty coincidence in my book

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by martyh

How would he reach the same conclusion on 7 out of nine of the defendants at the same time ,it would take a mighty coincidence in my book

If the evidence as presented to the jury and in public was only strong enough to convict 7 of them, then coming to the same conclusion is not that different from having a jury of 1000 people coming to that same conclusion. It's when a jury decision defies all the evidence that there should be suspicion.

One of those acquitted was only charged with conspiracy, which tends to be difficult to prove.

Originally Posted by nomadking

If the evidence as presented to the jury and in public was only strong enough to convict 7 of them, then coming to the same conclusion is not that different from having a jury of 1000 people coming to that same conclusion. It's when a jury decision defies all the evidence that there should be suspicion.

One of those acquitted was only charged with conspiracy, which tends to be difficult to prove.

You mis understand ,how would he know that the jury had reached a verdict at all on 7 of the defendants ,he should have had no idea if any verdict had been reached on any of the defendants untill they were announced i court

I(f it is true I hope Griffin goes to jail.

Can an MEP still stand if imprisoned?