Miss-carriage of Justice.

[AKALI]

I had been found guilty of ABH waiting sentencing.
I am 40 years old and always believed criminal should be punished harshly including hard labour. I never believed miscarriage of justice could happen. Now I know the hard way. I don’t believe in jury anymore there must some experts sitting with the jury at least.

[jackthehat]

Do you have a question?

[bednobs]

oh, ok.
What kind of experts do you suggest?

[lcg]

well...a jury of yours peers seem to believe that you are guilty. perhaps your perspective is different from all of theirs and your alleged victim?

[EDDIE51]

ABH is not normally a Jury trial, it is normally a magistrates court only offence , so what made your case so serious it went to Crown court ?
Or did you plead not guilty and demand a jury trial?

[tonywiltshire]

A trial by jury is usually considered to be the fairest but it has been known for jurors to be in error, it is difficult to think of a better system.
As eddie says this would often be a summary offence, why did it go to the crown court, where you could have been sentenced to up to 5 years imprisonment.
Your legal team are in the best position to advise you on your next step.

[Flyhalf]

In what way has justice "miscarried"?
You didn't do it?
It was self defence?
Someone lied on oath?

[lcg]

but the op states he doesn't 'believe in jury anymore'....so i assume he had one? if so....then i stand by my original comment. i have sat through many a court case with a jury and they always seem to get the verdict right (considering evidence specifically) imho x

[tomyoung90]

What's the alternative to a jury? A case hardened judge? Juries do not always get verdicts spot on (though they cannot be challenged), but I think everyone would agree they are preferential to a judge who has heard every excuse in the book and will never listen to them - try pleading not guilty in a mags court and see what happens. I have heard arguments for professional jurors, but we simply do not have the resources to invest in training and maintaining them. In any event, they would just become case hardened in time anyway.

Jurors often do not understand the law in more complex cases such as fraud, but for relatively easy to understand cases, such as ABH, they can get their heads around it and decide on a verdict easily - particularly when they have the expert direction of an experienced judge and arguments from barristers to consider. If you feel justice has not been done because of a lack of evidence/unfair sentence etc, go back to your solicitor/barrister and think about appealing. You can appeal either the conviction or just the sentence, but be advised that if the evidence is overwhelming then the conviction may be upheld and your sentence could be increased.

Hope that helps.

[FredPuli43]

Experts on what sitting on your jury? Let me guess. You think you used reasonable force in self -defence. They didn't. (That's what defendants usually complain about and they commonly complain about the medical or other expert evidence as well when they do so. They are wrong, and at least ten of the twelve jurors thought they were).

If not that, what kind of expertise would you have liked on your jury (or juries in general)?

It's difficult to see what expertise an abh case would need. Not on the law; that's what the judge is for and the case can be appealed if he gets that wrong. Jurors bring common sense, a knowledge of the world, an ability to distinguish truth from lies, and judgment of character, to a case. A bonus is 'jury equity' where they think the defendant is technically guilty but the case shouldn't have been brought, so they acquit.

But if your case is appealable , your counsel will so advise .

[naomi24]

I'm not with you. ABH is a serious charge, and you must have done something to end up in court. What did you do?