BRITISH JUSTICE - BLACK DEFENDANTS VERSUS ALL WHITE JURY, PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES EQUAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. PART 1

The wheels of justice in the British criminal justice system will more than likely be the wheels of injustice for black defendants. 

Having recently watched a trial in which an all white jury convicted a black defendant, apparently solely on the account of the complainant, and the fanciful and farcical summing up of the white prosecutor, who seemed to have a prejudicial view of black people, I am led to ask several questions of the implementation of British law. 

Particularly in light of the fact that the British criminal justice system is known to dispense harsher pseudo justice when black defendants have the misfortune of having to submit themselves to it.

So, English law, namely that of the United Kingdom, includes a requirement that, where a jury trial is to take place, a defendant should be tried by 12 of his/her peers. Meaning that 12 'ordinary members of the public', who are selected randomly, should sit and hear the evidence proffered by the prosecution and the defence  teams, and, based on their analysis and weighing up of the evidence, collectively form a view as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants.

So, first, we begin with the random selection of the members of the jury, and we consider a number of things. Such as, should they include a balance between males and females, a gender balance, if you will. And what about ethnicity; should we not also consider the ethnic representation of the jurors, asking ourselves question such as, are they all white, and, if so, why? Can an all white jury be expected to deliberate fairly when considering the guilt or innocence of a black citizen, be he/she or Asian, Caribbean, African or Middle Eastern origins?

And what about religious affiliations? Should a Muslim defendant be considered as acting unreasonably, if he/she were expecting that a number of their Muslim peers should be on a jury which is trying? If so, why, since, say, an all white, Christian oriented jury can hardly be said to be their peers, in a cultural sense, at least?

Too often black defendants have to run the gauntlet of 'presumption of guilt', instead of that of innocence.

Might we not also consider the intellectual capacity of the members of the jury, in terms of their ability to consider, weigh up and form an informed and accurate view of the defendant's guilt or innocence, based on an accurate and proper evaluation of evidence or lack of evidence presented in the court? And do so without being cajoled or pressured by other members of the jury into forming their decision?

Now, it might well be the case, that, in an ideal society in which all citizens are treated fairly, - which is never and will never be the case - irrespective of their race, ethnic, religious and sexual orientations, it might be arguable that juries do not need to reflect, at least the gender, religious and/or ethnic affiliation of the defendant. However, what happens when you are dealing with a situation involving a society which has no illusions to being such an ideal state?


To be continued.