How did the BNP know the Rochdale men were guilty before the Judge knew?

[Gromit]

// Nick Griffin, BNP leader posted a comment on his Twitter account which read: ''News flash. Seven of the Muslim paedophile rapists found guilty in Liverpool.'' //

The Judge investigated and found that was indeed true, the jury had found seven guilty and were still assessing the remainder.

// Mr Griffin later backtracked on Twitter when he was told that the jury had not yet officially returned any verdicts.

The defence counsel who supported the discharge of the jury said there must have been ''two-way communication'' between someone in the jury room and a far-right organisation.

But inquiries carried out by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service showed that the message, which the court heard was first published on the Infidels of Britain website, was published at a time when the jury was in its jury room where all electronic equipment is banned. //

http://www.telegraph....mole-in-the-jury.html

But the question remains unanswered. If the Jury room was secure, how did the BNP leader specifically know how many and when had been found guilty?

[jno]

the figure was wrong, wasn't it? Nine rather than seven were convicted? If so, then either it was a wild guess or else someone on the jury texted while some of the defendants were still being considered. I'm not quite sure why a juror would do that - if you were a BNP supporter you might wait until all the cases were judged.

Still. A good question. I'd like to hear the answer.

[anotheoldgit]

This is just a defence ploy to get the trial aborted.

One does not have to be a genius to guess how many would be found guilty.

[Gromit]

// One does not have to be a genius to guess how many would be found guilty. //

Actually you do. This was before the jury had finished considering all the cases. It would be impossible to know how many they had considered and how many remained. And if Griffin just made a lucky guess, he should put a couple of quid on the Euro Lottery.

jno. At the same point they had guilty results for seven, it appeared on the website. But electronic equipment is banned in the jury room. So the figure must have been conveyed to someone during a break.

I don't think it had any bearing on the result but the leak should be investigated. The leader of the BNP should not know before the trial Judge is told.

[jno]

so it must have been transmitted during proceedings, then. It's possible someone had a mobile despite the ban on them; I don't know if jurors are frisked. (But presumably their phone records could be traced?)

Other than that, telling someone during a lunch break sounds plausible.

[jno]

... actually, I suppose a good first step would be to ask Griffin

[brionon]

Gromit
Question Author
// One does not have to be a genius to guess how many would be found guilty. //

Actually you do.
Actually you Don't-Guessing is free for All Genius or not- innit ?

[FredPuli43]

No harm was done. The result was accurate at the time; these were verdicts, not merely the reporting of the way the discussion was going on or the opinion of a juror. They being verdicts reached, the jury foreman would have told the jury usher by passing a note out; the judge tells a jury that when they have reached a verdict that the foreman is to do that.
The verdicts had not been "announced", according to The Times. Now, that may be simply that the judge hadn't had it announced yet. He might have decided not to take the verdicts yet but to wait until the rest of the verdicts were decided, a somewhat unusual course if there were seven verdicts but more likely if one or more of those found guilty were still subject of undecided counts. Alternatively these might have been majority verdicts, offered before the time that the judge had decided majority verdicts were acceptable; given the apparent time elapsed that is very unlikely, being long after the time when any judge would not accept them. The press didn't report any of the verdicts as majority ones (viz. 10 or 11 jurors deciding guilty)

Mr Griffin knows. But it sounds very much as though the verdicts leaked out via of the court staff; the court reporting press, who are always close to court staff because that's useful, might have been told, in the natural expectation that the jury were coming in to deliver those verdicts straight away.That's what usually happens, and the reporter would have a head start in sending the story as a news flash When the jury didn't, contrary to all expectations, nobody was going to admit what had happened.

[jno]

FredPuli, I suspect the covert implication here is that the defendants were being tried by a bunch of BNP members, who were staying in touch with their leader during the trial. That needs investigating, even if only to disprove it in the name of justice.

[FredPuli43]

Quite, jno. It's a risk we all take if tried by jury. The Defence right of peremptory challenge to jurors was abolished a good many years ago; this was really a cost-cutting measure but presened otherwise; but it's doubtful whether the most astute counsel would spot a BNP member at a glance !

The safeguard is the majority verdict. Ten out of twelve is enough for a verdict either way. You'd need ten people who were or were swayed by the BNP supporters in the twelve to get a guilty verdict. In this case it looks as though the verdicts were unanimous (reports usually say if the verdict is by majority).

Incidentally it's a myth that defence counsel challenged all jurors who carried the Daily Telegraph or were presumed too 'respectable'. The challenges, shared between defence counsel in cases of several defendants, so anyone who wanted more challenges than allowed for one had them .made by others, were aimed at getting the biggest mix of jurors. That was to ensure argument, perhaps polarised (hint!), in the jury room and stop the rest of the jury meekly following one dominant loudmouth.