Jury trial and DEI

What does trial by jury even mean in an age of mass immigration?

A Labour councillor who called for far-right activists’ throats to be cut at an anti-racism rally was found not guilty of encouraging violent disorder by a jury over the summer.

Ricky Jones, 58, went on trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he was seen on video making reference to “disgusting Nazi fascists” while addressing a crowd in Walthamstow on 7 August last year.

Mr Jones said his remarks were directed towards far-right activists who he said had left stickers on a train with razor blades hidden behind them, and told police they were never intended to be “taken literally by anyone.”

The Dartford councillor, who has since been suspended by the Labour Party, had denied encouraging violent behaviour.

A video showing Mr Jones addressing crowds in Walthamstow last year went viral on social media after the protest, which had been organised in response to plans for a far-right march outside Waltham Forest Immigration Bureau. He also drew his finger across his throat as he spoke to the crowd.

Mr Jones was arrested the day after making the comments and told the court he felt it was his “duty” to attend counter-protests. Jurors deliberated for just over half an hour before finding him not guilty

Many have compared this case to that of Lucy Connolly who pleaded guilty to and was jailed for inciting racial hatred by Tweet. She was jailed for 31 months and has since been released. She lost an appeal against her sentence.

Now some old wise heads out there have been saying this is not a case of two-tier justice as Jones pleaded not guilty and was acquitted by a jury, whereas Connolly pleaded guilty. Melanie Phillips in the Times for instance said “Southport cases aren’t proof of two-tier justice. Politicians trying to make capital out of Ricky Jones and Lucy Connolly should know better.”

If someone was acquitted for calling for the slitting of the throats of Jews, I expect Ms Phillips would be singing a different tune.

I am a lawyer and I do know better. It is naïve to believe that just because someone was acquitted after trial that all is fine and dandy in the English criminal justice system. This fails to take into account what pressures people feel when entering a plea, whether they will be granted bail and who the lawyers are. Some for instance have just one lawyer and others like Kneecap have six. It also ignores who might sit on a jury and what a jury of your peers actually is, in an era of mass immigration.

One of the great advances in England was the right to be tried by a jury, a jury of your peers. It was one of the demands made by the Barons from King John and included in the Charter, now Magna Carta in 1215.

Historically, who could serve on a jury was limited. Until very recently you had to be male. It is no coincidence that the fantastic film on jury deliberations is called 12 Angry Men. Not 12 angry people or 12 angry men and women, but 12 angry men. It would have been more accurately called 12 angry white men. In the United States, until recently you not only had to be male to serve on a jury, but a white male.

(Henry Fonda is the hold out juror in the classic 12 Angry Men.)

Tom Robinson the African American was tried for rape in the fictional To Kill a Mockingbird, and condemned by 12 racist white men. This was replicated all over the deep south.

(Gregory Peck plays the iconic Atticus Finch. Finch gives his closing speech to the all-white male jury.) 

(Above. The trial for the murder of Emmett Till ended in the acquittal of J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant. The all-white, all-male jury delivered a not-guilty verdict after only deliberating for a little over an hour. The brutal murder shocked the nation and galvanised the civil right movement in the South.)

There were also property requirements to serve on a jury. It was only very recently that defendants were truly tried by a jury of their peers – a mix of both sexes and minorities with no property requirements. But what happens in modern day London, where whites are now the ethnic minority compared to all other ethnic minorities combined?

Juries are entitled to acquit no matter what the evidence. This is known as jury equity or jury nullification. It is seen as a limit on state power, the idea being that a jury would acquit a defendant who was being tried on some trumped up charge brought by an overbearing government. Therefore trial by jury has been called ‘the light that shows that freedom live.’ No reasons must be given for such an acquittal in the face of the evidence.

Jury nullification can be used whenever a jury fancies. If the jury is majority non-white and a non-white defendant is on some charge of inciting violence against ‘fascists’ they can acquit. If the charge is destroying a statue of a slave holder and the defendant is bang to rights on the evidence, the jury can acquit.

The likelihood of an acquittal will inform or at least should inform what a defendant’s plea will be. I wouldn’t want to be on a charge with the name Goldstein in a courtroom in East London right now. But I would give serious consideration to pleading not guilty to inciting racism if I was Mohammed someone or other and I was going to a jury trial in London. I’d take my chances on that one, especially if I was granted bail. 

Photo by Francesco Alberti on Unsplash

(Above. Jesus Christ brought before Pontius Pilate on a trumped up charge of treason. He never got the benefit of a jury of his peers.)

OJ Simpson demonstrates the glove doesn’t fit. The initial jury is selected and made up of four men and eight women. Eight of the jurors are Black, one is Hispanic, one person is white and two are of mixed race. Simpson is acquitted of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in “the trial of the century.” He was later found liable at civil trial.

Later one of the jurors revealed that 90% of them believed the murder suspect was guilty, but they let him off as “payback” for Rodney King’s case.

So no, a not guilty verdict after a trial is not absolute proof against the charge of two- tier justice. Inequalities between defendants can occur before charge, at the time the charge was brought, on the decision as to granting bail, legal representation, entering plea and trial before a jury. Trial by jury should be protected but it is not an absolute protection against two-tier justice.

 

Laura Perrins is a conservative commentator and former barrister. Subscribe to her Substack, where this article first appeared.

 

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!

 

(Photograph: The wub, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)