4 ms·
In one case (Seema Misra) the judge asked the jury this in his/her summing up: “There is no direct evidence of her taking any money... She adamantly denies ste
by xioxox 5y ago
In one case (Seema Misra) the judge asked the jury this in his/her summing up:
“There is no direct evidence of her taking any money... She adamantly denies stealing. There is no CCTV evidence. There are no fingerprints or marked bank notes or anything of that kind. There is no evidence of her accumulating cash anywhere else or spending large sums of money or paying off debts, no evidence about her bank accounts at all. Nothing incriminating was found when her home was searched...Do you accept the prosecution case that there is ample evidence before you to establish that Horizon is a tried and tested system in use at thousands of post offices for several years, fundamentally robust and reliable?”
The jury pronounced Seema Misra guilty.
There are many more details in this very comprehensive report by Private Eye: https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-in-the-post https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/justice-lost-i...
- gene91 5y agoIf a jury concluded that the defendant is guilty, I don't think judicial process reform would help. The fix would require at least public education. Reforming judicial process is hard, but fixing public perception seems way harder.
- xioxox 5y agoI've heard part of the problem is that the Post Office were allowed to conduct their own prosecutions. If the public prosecutor (Crown Prosecution Service) would have been involved, they would have asked the Post Office for any material which would have benefited the defence (this would be passed as disclosure). Because the Post Office were "victim" and prosecutor they never did this and the defence didn't get this material.
- goodcanadian 5y agoI have said in the past, only half in jest, that if I were guilty of a crime, I would want a jury trial, but if I were innocent, I would want to be tried by a judge, alone.
- IshKebab 5y agoPeople think software is infallible, despite their direct evidence otherwise.
- 0x_rs 5y agoIt's a "guilty until proven innocent" story, and I'm afraid there'll be many more in the future when the black-box software so prints out and whomever is in charge refuses to question the legitimacy of the claims for whatever reason they may have. This one time they made it out, countless more may not.
- kergonath 5y agoYes, you face an uphill battle if one forensic “expert” has decided you were guilty. It is actually quite similar to non-falsifiable pseudo-science forensic techniques that are used to impress jurys. Being innocent is not enough.
- jack_riminton 5y agoWill be even worse when the black-box in question is a deep neural network that can't show its workings out
- ed25519FUUU 5y agoThankfully stories like this help to reinforce positive outcomes in other similar trials.
- anigbrowl 5y agoThis is a good example of why a jury trial is not always the best choice for a defendant. Juries are often overly impressed by authority figures, and assess the status of witnesses rather than the evidence itself.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deanCommie 5y agoPerfect example of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect
- ed25519FUUU 5y agoNevertheless a trial by our peers is the best option we have in the long run. Think of alternatives, such as an algorithm, or a single person. It’s not great, sure, but people from the same circumstances judging a peer is as good as it gets.
- voxic11 5y agoIt's not as good as it gets at all. It's just a good fallback to have available for defendants should the rest of the system fail.
- anigbrowl 5y agoIt's a great option but it should not be the only option, in my view.
- baobabKoodaa 5y agoA single person (a judge) sounds better than a jury to me.
- ed25519FUUU 5y agoPersonally I’d much rather be judged by 12 of my peers, where they must be unanimous in a conviction.
- thaumasiotes 5y agoI believe a US judge is capable of personally acquitting a defendant -- a jury is only needed to convict. Is that not the case in Britain?
- nohuck13 5y agoThis is called a "judgement notwithstanding the verdict" in US federal courts. It's also one of the few instances where the _prosecution_ may appeal without violating double jeopardy protections. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_ver...
- stjohnswarts 5y agoa judge can indeed overrule a jury verdict in favor of the defendent if he thinks the jury is clearly off it's rocker or that the prosecutor did not produce evidence that meets the standard of the law. Sometimes it's best to go with a bench trial based on situation. This might have been a good one, if the judge is known to have a solid understanding of technology vs the general public who barely know how to work a mouse and keyboard and have little training in deciding things base on a logical premise like "all software has bugs" as opposed to appeals to emotion.
- kergonath 5y agoPrivate Eye is a national treasure. Britain would be much worse without it.
- UnpossibleJim 5y agoNever underestimate the lack of technical knowledge of judge, jury, Senate or Congress (I'm American, I can't speak to the British system - but it seems similar).