Bekka And Andy, And Co....the Fun Starts Today !

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24691241

Apparently the trial is going to last until well into the New Year. As its only late October now, how can it last so long ?

[Mamyalynne]

Mountains of evidence to plough through?

[rockyracoon]

God, imagine being on that jury!

[mikey4444]

Probably right mamy, but it still seems a long time to me. According to the Guardian today, it could be the longest trial in recent memory. Didn't someone once say that the wheels of British justice grnd very slowly, but exceedingly fine. I don't really mind how long they take, as long as they get the b*st*rds in the end. But who would want to be on the jury in a case like this ? Can you imagine telling your employer that you aren't coming into work for 4 months ?

[rockyracoon]

My old supervisor voluteered for a stint of around 9 months, the bosses were not happy at all.

[ummmm]

How long do they have off for xmas? Bet it's much longer than Joe Bloggs....

[tonyav]

I would need tablets to stay awake if I was on that jury.

[FredPuli43]

Refreshers, dear boy, refreshers ! Barristers are paid a big fee for preparing a case like this, which also covers the first day of trial. For the second and every subsequent day they are paid what's called 'refreshers' per day. These can be quite substantial, and every day the trial lasts they mount up, at the same rate per day.

And where a case is built on circumstantial evidence, as this will be, there is always a lot of detail, which taken together, is supposed to prove guilt. Now,your task when defending is to chip away at each tiny bit, so that the whole lot together isn't quite convincing enough for the jury. And you never know which bit is weak; you can't pass over any bit.

The jury panel is warned in advance of the estimated length of trial, so that only those who are available for months will sit. This does tend to mean that the jury is comprised of pensioners, "housewives", and the unemployed, but it's still a jury.

[jno]

up to six months, it says here

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/28/phone-hacking-trial-rebekah-brooks-andy-coulson

I hope the six months isn't going to be deducted from anyone's sentence - it should be added on, to compensate for the jurors' confinement.

[mushroom25]

in a complex trial such as this, there could be lengthy periods of legal argument, where the legal types argue about the minutiae of a point of law, and the jury are sent away.

[Peter Pedant]

funnily enough jno one of the would-be jurors is going to confined in the obstetric sense.... she was excused.

Jury selection so far - must have big bladders and be able to read and so on.

The Sundays had a bit on how big and expensive the leaders for the Crown and defence are....

[FredPuli43]

Be able to read? Funnily enough, I have had cases where I would challenge (or stand by, if prosecuting) because the juror could not read the oath card, but challenges were then abolished and, in any case, the judge of their own motion would stand the juror down in a case involving documentary exhibits.

Jurors who can read soon get a mastery of the document bundles. You find that , as you get to a point, they are already ahead of you and have found the page, before you have chance to say "My Lord, that is at page 229".

[sandyRoe]

If people were convicted on charges similar to these how much porridge would be in prospect?

[Peter Pedant]

Judges become a little irrational when it comes to perjury - not of course referring to hem hem His Lordship in the this worshipful case.....

Archer did time for lying in an affidavit
Aitken also did time for lying about an air ticket
Vicky Price did time and also lost her gongs, for filling out a form an eentsy teentsy bit wrong....she wasnt the driver when she was. A very understandable mistake for the majority of women drivers I would say

[jno]

from what's been in the papers over the past year, it sounds as if the charges here may involve not just a little womanly forgetfulness but attempts to destroy evidence, which I would like to think would prompt the judge to get out the black cap.

[i[If they're proven, of course.[i]

[askyourgran]

It sounds boring, I'd be interested to know how they can prove they did listen in.

[FredPuli43]

Most legal points now are cleared up before the case gets to a jury, pre-trial, and are almost always about the admissibility of evidence. The idea is to get as much of it excluded as possible; the less stuff that's against you, the better! In the trial itself there really shouldn't be much time spent on legal points; a lot of legal points aren't really legal, but raise matters which the jury shouldn't hear, such as the judge asking where the heck the line of questioning is going!

[EDDIE51]

I was wondering how any one on the jury could be expected to remember all the details for up to 6 months so as to make a considered judgement at the end.

[CokeTulip]

Have they said anything about who is representing them? Someone has to win and I wonder how the legals are matched here - it will be fascinating.

Does anyone know if it is legal (or if it has ever happened!) for bets to be placed on big legal cases like this.
Once it has started -you cant comment on the case on here - can you (for legal reasons).

[FredPuli43]

It won't be illegal to have private bets on the result of a case, but bookmakers would feel constrained by public policy, that while not contrary to an Act of Parliament, it was contrary to common law; you couldn't have jurors waiting for good odds and then piling in with a verdict to suit !

At the Old Bailey, barristers used to have a sweepstake on the time the jury would take to reach a verdict. This had the unfortunate consequence that the foreman would say "Guilty" and instantly there would be counsel checking the clock and a flurry of banknotes changing hands. This did not give the appearance of dignity or respect that the public might wish and, in due course, word came down that such displays should be confined to the robing room.

[FredPuli43]

And just to increase your respect for the law and lawyers: Another bet which was popular was on which of the jurors would be foreman. You'd see them sworn and then make your prediction. Some people were brilliant at this, but some of us wouldn't get it right even three days into the trial.