I have three points to make in response to Prof Richard Vogler’s article on jury conscience (Trudi Warner reveals the dark secret of English courts: juries do have the right to follow their consciences, 27 September). First, every juror swears an oath or gives solemn affirmation to “faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence”. It says nothing about their conscience. A verdict based on personal conscience or the political belief, for example, that a particular law was unjust or oppressive would be perverse.
Second, in that context, the alleged carrying of banners stating that potential jurors have an absolute right to acquit according to their conscience is not only misleading, it may also be regarded as tantamount to jury nobbling.
Third, the Bushell case of 1670 does not confer a right to acquit according to conscience. It defends juries from judicial interference. The sitting judge, Vaughan CJ, affirmed the absolute and inviolable right of jurors to disagree with the trial judge and to form their own independent verdict on the facts. In an English criminal jury trial the jury is the only arbiter of fact. Penn and his co-defendant were acquitted because the jury did not believe the prosecution evidence that the defendants had formed an illegal assembly. They found, as a question of fact (not law), that the defendants had simply been “talking to each other”. This was a verdict they were entitled to give. Their consciences only became an issue when it came to resisting the Recorder’s arbitrary direction to convict.
Trevor Brooks
Rainham, Kent
• Prof Richard Vogler’s interesting piece about “perverse” jury verdicts should perhaps have mentioned the cause célèbre of Clive Ponting (1946 2020) – the high-flying Ministry of Defence civil servant who became a whistleblower over the Falklands war. In 1984 he leaked documents about the sinking of the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano, and the following year was sensationally acquitted by a jury at the Old Bailey despite his admitted breach of the Official Secrets Act. See the Guardian’s obituary by David Leigh.
Thomas Radice
Retired senior civil servant, London
• I have been at the criminal bar for 30 years, both prosecuting and defending. I want to commend the article for pointing out an obvious truth. In every court, every day of the year juries are told that the prosecution bring the case and the prosecution must make you sure of guilt. Nothing less will do. Juries are selected at random and have an innate degree of good sense. If they reject a prosecution so be it. What is the alternative? Trial of serious cases by judges alone? No. Everyone involved in the criminal justice system, myself included, will tell you this is the best and fairest system. Let’s just leave juries alone to do their job.
Stephen Earnshaw
Twickenham, London
• Yes, of course juries have the right to follow their consciences – the Clive Ponting case being an example that many will remember. Beyond this, though, I cannot understand why more outrage and protest isn’t being made over recent cases where a judge has ruled that climate protesters are not allowed to mention their motivation in their defence. Even murderers are allowed to state their motivation (eg self-defence, which may get them acquitted), but a climate protester can’t? This is a dreadful abuse of the justice system.
Phil Uribe
Llandrindod Wells, Powy
